Second Worst President in US History.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by ladajo »

You have no idea.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

Bonjour, Malaise



Image



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.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/bonjour-m ... le/2552732



Will re-edit when Pixy chops off the hotlink to the image.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

Obama Tweets Photo of Himself with Jimmy Carter for Carter's Birthday



Image



http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obama-t ... s-birthday





Two peas in a pod.... of FAIL.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:Two peas in a pod.... of FAIL.

Jimmy Carter says he would have defeated Reagan had he been more 'manly'

Image

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.
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.
In other words he could have beaten Reagan if he'd governed like he maybe had a pair...


http://washingtonexaminer.com/jimmy-car ... le/2554217

JoeP
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by JoeP »

I find this interesting:
“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.
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.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

Image
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by williatw »

U.S. to switch on European missile shield despite Russian alarm

Image
U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 28, 2016.
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."

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.






http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato- ... SKCN0Y217M

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by ladajo »

But can it defend itself from a ballistic missile? Seems like a tougher geometry / kinematics problem.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by williatw »

ladajo wrote:But can it defend itself from a ballistic missile? Seems like a tougher geometry / kinematics problem.

From the above posted link:
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.
So if the story is accurate yes; by land, or sea the interceptors can be fired to destroy the incoming ballistic missiles.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by ladajo »

Make a trajectory plot, and think about it again.
Research question: What are the differences in kinematics for defending a target verses self defense for Aegis Ashore?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

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.



Your comment presupposes that Obama used some sort of rational thinking in arriving at this decision, and that it had something to do with Iran. If we accept this premise as true, then I would have to apply Wolfgang Pauli's admonition that it "isn't even wrong."



A European Shield cannot prevent Iran from dropping a Nuke on Tel Aviv and thereby starting World War III. Iran should have been smashed back in 1979, and the Islamo-Kooks kept from power in the first place.


If Obama imagines that the one thing has any connection to the other, then it is just one more thing about which he is utterly wrong.



Jimmy Carter abetted the loss of Iran to religious fanatics, and now Barack Obama has come along and handed them a gun. This thing is not going to have a good ending, and both men should go down in history as the worst disasters this nation has ever produced.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by ladajo »

dropping a Nuke on Tel Aviv and thereby starting World War III
I would ask you to provide your logic train for this.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

ladajo wrote:
dropping a Nuke on Tel Aviv and thereby starting World War III
I would ask you to provide your logic train for this.


On which point? Whether Iran would hit Tel Aviv, or whether that act would start WW3?


Let's just skip to the second point because it doesn't matter where Iran drops a bomb in Israel. Dropping one anywhere would result in an Israeli Nuke retaliation.


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.



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.


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.

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.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

Oh, and don't forget Operation Sampson.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by ladajo »

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.
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.
Turkey would attack Iran, and seek two outcomes; control of North West Iran, and potentially all the way down to the Iran side of the SAA. Annihilation of Kurdish enclaves in North West Iran. Turkey would not attack Israel, due to conflicts with western interests that would be permanent or long term drama.

The Arabs would not give a shit in general, as they hate the Persians. The only Arabs to give a shit would be the anti-sunni extremists supported by Iran, and the anti-jew elements in some of the Shiite areas. High risk includes Lebanon (no real military capability if Israel goes all in for Hezbollah), and Syria, who would also fold once the Israelis followed the Hezbollah trail into Syria. Egypt would stay out of it, as they have enough issues to the west, and south, as well as internally. Most Arab regimes would be more happy to take the short road and eliminate the Persians, thinking they would then be able to focus solely on the Israelis once Iran becomes a non-entity.

Iran would not have much ability to get at Israel with any real impact once the Israelis counter-fire. Also, the Arabs are not going to let the Iranians use their territories to get at Israel. Of note, you can find news reporting where Saudi Arabia coordinate with and allowed the Israelis to live exercise missions to Iran via the Kingdom.

We will not directly support Israel, other than attriting Iranian forces in the Gulf and GOO GOA that may try to reach Israel. Mostly, there will be muted clapping by Arabs when we do this. We will do this regardless of what flavor President we have.

The wild card in this is Russia, as they NEED Iran. That said, they will probably sit it out, as they don't have the operational reach to make a differences, and will probably think to install a Sock Puppet regime in Iran in the aftermath. This would cement their position for a while in the area. Unlike the tenuous crazy they deal with now regarding keeping the Iranian Nutjobs in a box.
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 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: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.
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: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.
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.
There are degrees of argument that can be made as to how much of the sock-puppets can be rolled up. I would hazard Hezbollah would be done in militarily, and then the remnants, and anti-sunni guys would die on the vine as a result of Iran becoming a non-entity at the hands of the Israelis.
The Arabs would be happy, but would not thank Israel.

The only real chance of escalation here is that Iran would start lobbing rounds at everyone that annoys them. The result would more than likely be a faster death for Iran as a nation as some of those attacked would then move to actively support Israel's Iranian Deconstruction Plan vice passively.

I think the nuance you miss in all this is that Iran is considered the greatest evil and threat by the Arabs. Israel, while annoying, is not considered an active threat unless provoked. The only Arabs poking Israel are those doing so under Iranian Control or influence. And they are not the main line Arabs. Think of it this way; Iran uses Israel and/or the U.S. as a misdirection with the Arabs so they can actually undermine the Sunni power bases in the Arab lands, and the Arab Sunni know it. Given a choice between living with Israel, or living with Iran, the Arab majority is going to pick Israel as the lessor evil.

I do not see any path for an Iran / Israel exchange to extend. All paths lead to the end of Iran, and some lead to the end of Israel and Iran in a mutual, which the Arabs would applaud. Except for the Jerusalem bit. Also, don't forget that Israel will not tolerate any real capability by Iran, so this fight would be a sooner rather than later, and also would thus inherently limit Iranian ability to escalate horizontally by trying to drag in third parties with kinetic actions. This would only hasten the end of Iran anyway.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Post Reply