The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemies

[deacon blues]

If history has taught us anything it has time and again revealed that despots, dictators, tyrants and evil world leaders aren't touched or moved with compassion by efforts to tone down the rhetoric, appear reluctant to use force or have an aversion to war. The perception of weakness emboldens our enemies. Hitler wasn't won over by Chamberlain. Our reluctance to take an offensive posture with the Viet Cong didn't stop them from attacking South Vietnam and eventually running us out on a rail. Clinton's reluctance to apprehend Bin-laden when he had a chance didn't convince him and his cronies that we were nice guys after all. The Clinton Administration's weak responses to the series of terror attacks throughout the 90s convinced Al-Qaeda we did not have the will to fight.

This scaling down of our nuclear arsenal and adopting policies where we limit our use of nuclear weapons may get applause and praise from those who are already our allies and it may impress the New York media elites, the Washington cocktail party circuit, Hollywood celebrities, college and university academics and the naïve liberal left, but Mr. Ahmadenijhad, the leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Hugo Chavez and other murderous leaders who want and are working for the demise of the US are smiling and thinking, "They are weak." Toughness is the only language that garnishes any respect and engenders any fear in the hearts of totalitarians.

BO and his ideologues don't get it...

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

If history has taught us anything it has time and again revealed that despots, dictators, tyrants and evil world leaders aren't touched or moved with compassion by efforts to tone down the rhetoric, appear reluctant to use force or have an aversion to war. The perception of weakness emboldens our enemies. Hitler wasn't won over by Chamberlain. Our reluctance to take an offensive posture with the Viet Cong didn't stop them from attacking South Vietnam and eventually running us out on a rail. Clinton's reluctance to apprehend Bin-laden when he had a chance didn't convince him and his cronies that we were nice guys after all. The Clinton Administration's weak responses to the series of terror attacks throughout the 90s convinced Al-Qaeda we did not have the will to fight.

This scaling down of our nuclear arsenal and adopting policies where we limit our use of nuclear weapons may get applause and praise from those who are already our allies and it may impress the New York media elites, the Washington cocktail party circuit, Hollywood celebrities, college and university academics and the naïve liberal left, but Mr. Ahmadenijhad, the leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Hugo Chavez and other murderous leaders who want and are working for the demise of the US are smiling and thinking, "They are weak." Toughness is the only language that garnishes any respect and engenders any fear in the hearts of totalitarians.

BO and his ideologues don't get it...

When we have enough nuclear weapons to decimate those nations 1000 times over... whats it going to matter if we get rid of 50% of them? We could still decimate them 500 times over?

[n david]

He had to do something to try and earn his Nobel Peace Prize.

I read now he's "seriously considering" offering a peace proposal to Israel and the Palestinians.

He's like the energizer bunny ... and just as annoying.

[SOUNWORTHY]

The guy makes me sad. He's destroying our country single handed. No man should have that much authority.

[deacon blues]

When we have enough nuclear weapons to decimate those nations 1000 times over... whats it going to matter if we get rid of 50% of them? We could still decimate them 500 times over?

The key word is "perception". And its not only the issue of downsizing the arsenal, its the declaration to limit their use. Also the warmer approach to certain regimes while acting cool toward our allies like Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic.

Evil men are looking for advantage, not a friendly game of checkers.

[franklyn4]

I hope you guys are aware that Ronald Reagan and G. W. Bush did the same thing right?
Here is video of Regan doing it back in 1982. He begins talking 36 seconds into the clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2omYmK1jhQE

George H. Bush actually went further than Reagan did in 1991
http://peacepalacelibrary-weekly.blo...aty-start.html
http://nucleardreams.wordpress.com/2...orge-h-w-bush/


So following the logic in some posts, President Reagan and Bush weakened America as well. Or is it that when Republicans do it we dont criticize and are silent but when a democrat does the same thing, the sky is falling?


.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by franklyn4

I hope you guys are aware that Ronald Reagan and G. W. Bush did the same thing right?
Here is video of Regan doing it back in 1982. He begins talking 36 seconds into the clip


George H. Bush actually went further than Reagan did in 1991
http://peacepalacelibrary-weekly.blo...aty-start.html
http://nucleardreams.wordpress.com/2...orge-h-w-bush/


So following the logic in some posts, President Reagan and Bush weakened America as well. Or is it that when Republicans do it we dont criticize and are silent but when a democrat does the same thing, the sky is falling?


.

Reagan was confronting two nuclear armed super-powers during the Cold War. Things were a bit different in 1982. Also, with the Strategic Defense Initiative Reagan was attempting to "checkmate" the use of ICBMs and make them obsolete in that context. This move brought about the end of the Cold War. By also attempting to engage the Soviets and working to reduce tensions, Reagan showed that the U.S. was not interested in using "Star Wars" for offensive purposes.

George H. Bush reaped the benefits of Reagan's work. By 1991, the old policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) that had "kept the peace" (sort of) between the super-powers was shelved as it was obsolete. This resulted in a huge net reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Both Reagan and Bush rose to the challenges of their times. Reagan addressed the situation and changed the world. Bush responded well to those changes.

With nuclear proliferation so rampant and declared enemies of the U.S. receiving large amounts of nuclear aid from Russia and China, what conditions today suggest that we should step down our nuclear posture?

[deacon blues]

The context is also very important. RR and GHWB didn't have a track record of associating with anti-military types, people who would love to see the demise of the USA as a superpower and a nation morphed into the UN with a global govt ushering in utopia. Whereas the former presidents believed in peace through strength, BO and the liberal left believe in peace through diplomacy, unilateral disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons. The problem is that there will always be Hitlers, Castros, Husseins, Ahmajhinadads and Jong Ils who are willing to possess such weapons.

Its a globalist's, environmentalist's and humanist's pipe dream.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Regardless of how it is painted, the current President is simply fulfilling the role as the elected leader of the world's NUMBER ONE DEFENDER OF PEACE.

Many Presidents have done this before and many will do this in the future.


Don't think for a moment that his actions are weakening our posture.

As for the perception, name one country that's froggy enough to jump based on the idea that America doesn't have as many weapons as it used to so now is a good time to attack them?


You can't.



If/When America is attacked again, it will be for ideological reasons-- having nothing to do with thought that maybe America does not have as many nuclear weapons to defend herself now that President Obama is President.




Whatever the "right" can do to paint this guy in a negative light.....

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Regardless of how it is painted, the current President is simply fulfilling the role as the elected leader of the world's NUMBER ONE DEFENDER OF PEACE.

Many Presidents have done this before and many will do this in the future.


Don't think for a moment that his actions are weakening our posture.

As for the perception, name one country that's froggy enough to jump based on the idea that America doesn't have as many weapons as it used to so now is a good time to attack them?

Iran
North Korea
and several "non-states" like Somalia, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, al Queda, etc.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

You can't.

Just did.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

If/When America is attacked again, it will be for ideological reasons-- having nothing to do with thought that maybe America does not have as many nuclear weapons to defend herself now that President Obama is President.

When the United States is attacked again it will be because of those ideological reasons you stated.

If the United States is attacked with a nuke, it will be specifically because the Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama have banned the development of a single specific nuclear weapon - the "bunker buster."

They can git rid of hundreds of those shiny missiles and cruise warheads but we need to have about a half dozen bunker busters on hand. Obama and Pelosi/Reid have refused to even let development proceed on those.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Whatever the "right" can do to paint this guy in a negative light.....

You and Barry seem to have forgotten how close Iran is. And, how they already operate 4 well equipped proxy armies throughout the world including a force in the Brazillian/Uruguay/Paraguay no man's land that was responsible for destroying a Jewish owned building in downtown Buenos Aires a few years back.

Yup. It would be good to let those guys have nukes. Don't need any clean underground bunker busters for that job. Nope.