eXc: Nous aimons la liberté, l'état de droit, l'héritage des Lumières, la séparation de l'église et de l'état, l'humour. Nous n'aimons pas le fascisme, le communisme, l'antiaméricanisme, l'antisémitisme, le racisme, la bureaucratie, les totalitarismes. Nous estimons que le plus grave danger que courent les démocraties libérales est de céder à l'islamofascisme. Lire plus

Héritage Obama: A quand le retrait des troupes américaines de Corée ? (Dennis Rodman of politics: Is there anything Obama will not do to burnish his precious legacy ?)

Posté le mardi 18 août 2015 par Admini

Après l’Iran et Cuba, la Corée du nord ?

A l’heure ou emporté par son obsession du changement pour le changement et sa place dans l’histoire …

Le maître-démagogue et pire president américain depuis Carter …

Confirme qu’il est bel et bien prêt, de l’Irak a l’Afghanistan où à Cuba et sans oublier ses alliés les plus fidèles comme Israël …

A passer aux pertes et profits les gains chèrement acquis et héritages combines de l’ensemble de ses prédécesseurs depuis la Guerre froide …

Comment ne pas se poser la question suggérée en creux par la dernière tribune de l’historien américain Victor Davis Hanson …

De la Corée du nord ?

Ou, pour l’ineffable bonheur d’être le premier a le faire, notre Dennis Rodman de la politique pourrait bien retirer les troupes américaines de Corée du sud …

Et enfin serrer la paluche du dernier dictateur stalinien de la planète ?



Laisser un commentaire


8 réponses à “Héritage Obama: A quand le retrait des troupes américaines de Corée ? (Dennis Rodman of politics: Is there anything Obama will not do to burnish his precious legacy ?)”

  • 8
    James:

    The world is less peaceful, less stable and less liberal today than it was when Barack Obama took the oath of office in January, 2009; Kim Jong-un’s latest nuclear test, and the lack of an effective response by the United States, is merely a sign of the times.

  • 7
    James:

    NYT Admits Obama’s Asia Policy Is No Success

  • 6
    James:

    Cet essai nucléaire commence à faire des vagues
    Les US et les russes dénoncent – mais d’une façon qui montre qu’ils ne feront rien contre
    Israel dénonce – et s’inquiète de la collusion Irano-Coréenne
    La Chine menace toute ingérence sur la question.

    Mouais… En d’autres termes, rien de nouveau sous le soleil…

  • 5
    Zoubor:

    Cet essai nucléaire commence à faire des vagues
    Les US et les russes dénoncent – mais d’une façon qui montre qu’ils ne feront rien contre
    Israel dénonce – et s’inquiète de la collusion Irano-Coréenne
    La Chine menace toute ingérence sur la question.

  • 4
    Zoubor:

    Essai nucléaire no. 5 de la Corée du Nord
    Le plus puissant jusqu’à aujourd’hui…

    Nous nous rappelons que la représentante américaine ds les pour parlez nucléaires avec la Corée du Nord – prouvé comme fiasco total – était aussi de la partie ds les pourparler avec l’Iran!

    Moi chais pas mais je ne compte pas sur Bibi nathanyahou le beau parleur et faiseur de foutaises pour envoyer une cellule dormante du maussade pour regler certains comptes le jour ou l’Iran bombardera israel!

  • 3
    Zoubor:

    L’Amerique d’Obama va acheter de l’eau lourde d’iran!!!!
    L’Iran doit evacuer 32 tonnes d’eau lourde selon les accords nucleaires entre l’Europe, les USA et l’Iran.
    Obama a propose a l’Iran de leur acheter cette matiere importante pour le developpement d’armement nucleaire.
    Ou pensez vous ira l’argent US obtenu par l’iran ds la vente?
    Les republicains estiment avoir la reponse….

  • 2
    jc durbant:

    HUSSEIN’S FAREWELL APPEASEMENT TOUR (After Castro and Rouhani, what next ? Kim Jong Il?)

    “President Obama asked to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in two secret letters sent in late March to both Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Rouhani,” according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, which translated a Farsi-language report published Tuesday by a website affiliated with Iran’s Green movement. Obama purportedly wrote in the correspondence “that Iran has a limited-time opportunity to cooperate with the U.S. in order to resolve the problems in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and promised that if Iran agreed to a meeting between him and Rouhani, he would be willing to participate in any conference to this end,” according to MEMRI’s translation of the report.

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-obama-seeks-meeting-iranian-president/

    This seems to be Obama’s farewell tour of appeasement. He did the Castro thing. And like a girl looking to bring home ever more horrifying dates to shock her parents, he’s trying to find even more forbidden leaders to meet with. If Iran doesn’t work out, there’s always Hamas. Surely he’ll get a news cycle worth of headlines for becoming the first president to meet with a Hamas leader …

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262593/obama-pleading-wiran-let-him-meet-head-terror-daniel-greenfield#.VxqMiNXnhSx.facebook

  • 1
    jc durbant:

    Morceaux choisis:

    « After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb.”

    Barack Hussein Obama

    « More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq . . . Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL.”

    Barack Hussein Obama

    The president said many times he’s willing to step out of the rut of history.” (…) Once again Rhodes has, perhaps inadvertently, exposed the president’s premises more clearly than the president likes to do. The rut of history: It is a phrase worth pondering. It expresses a deep scorn for the past, a zeal for newness and rupture, an arrogance about old struggles and old accomplishments, a hastiness with inherited precedents and circumstances, a superstition about the magical powers of the present. It expresses also a generational view of history, which, like the view of history in terms of decades and centuries, is one of the shallowest views of all.expresses also a generational view of history, which, like the view of history in terms of decades and centuries, is one of the shallowest views of all. This is nothing other than the mentality of disruption applied to foreign policy. In the realm of technology, innovation justifies itself; but in the realm of diplomacy and security, innovation must be justified, and it cannot be justified merely by an appetite for change. Tedium does not count against a principled alliance or a grand strategy. Indeed, a continuity of policy may in some cases—the Korean peninsula, for example: a rut if ever there was one—represent a significant achievement. (…) Obama seems to believe that the United States owes Iran some sort of expiation. As he explained to Thomas Friedman the day after the nuclear agreement was reached, “we had some involvement with overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Iran” in 1953. Six years ago, when the streets of Iran exploded in a democratic rebellion and the White House stood by as it was put down by the government with savage force against ordinary citizens, memories of Mohammad Mosaddegh were in the air around the administration, as if to explain that the United States was morally disqualified by a prior sin of intervention from intervening in any way in support of the dissidents. The guilt of 1953 trumped the duty of 2009. But what is the alternative? This is the question that is supposed to silence all objections. It is, for a start, a demagogic question. This agreement was designed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If it does not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and it seems uncontroversial to suggest that it does not guarantee such an outcome—then it does not solve the problem that it was designed to solve. And if it does not solve the problem that it was designed to solve, then it is itself not an alternative, is it? The status is still quo. Or should we prefer the sweetness of illusion to the nastiness of reality? For as long as Iran does not agree to retire its infrastructure so that the manufacture of a nuclear weapon becomes not improbable but impossible, the United States will not have transformed the reality that worries it. We will only have mitigated it and prettified it. We will have found relief from the crisis, but not a resolution of it. The administration’s apocalyptic rhetoric about the deal is absurd: The temporary diminishments of Iran’s enrichment activities are not what stand between the Islamic Republic and a bomb. The same people who assure us that Iran has admirably renounced its aspiration to a nuclear arsenal now warn direly that a failure to ratify the accord will send Iranian centrifuges spinning madly again. They ridicule the call for more stringent sanctions against Iran because the sanctions already in place are “leaky” and crumbling, and then they promise us that these same failing measures can be speedily and reliably reconstituted in a nifty mechanism called “snapback.”

    Leon Wieseltier

    The definition of appeasement is to accept demands from an aggressor and then declare that the resulting concessions were of no real importance in the first place.

    Victor Davis Hanson

    When Obama entered office in January 2009, post-surge Iraq was quiet. By the end of his first year in office, three Americans had been killed. In 2010, fewer Americans were lost in Iraq each month than in accidents involving the U.S. military. That is why Joe Biden thought Iraq would be the administration’s “greatest achievement,” and Obama himself declared the country “stable and self-reliant.” Pulling all U.S. troops out at the end of 2011, against the advice of almost all sober military and diplomatic experts, achieved the desired talking point for the 2012 reelection campaign, but collapsed the country and birthed ISIL. Obama’s demagoguery is as if President Dwight Eisenhower had pulled all U.S. troops out of South Korea in 1955 to prep for his 1956 reelection campaign — and then blamed the ensuing North Korean victory and devastation of South Korea on Harry Truman for entering the Korean War in the first place in 1950. (…) All the contortions that Barack Obama has offered about Iraq — damning the invasion in 2003; claiming in 2004 that he had no policy differences on Iraq with the Bush administration; declaring in 2007 that the surge would fail; demanding in 2008 as a presidential candidate that all U.S. troops be brought home; assuring the world in 2011 that Iraq was “stable” and “self-reliant” as he pulled out all American peacekeepers; reassuring the world in 2014 that Iraq’s ISIS was not a real threat; and then deciding in 2015 that it was, as he ordered forces back in — have been predicated on perceived political advantage. That also explains why the deal was not presented as a treaty requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate, as the Constitution outlines.

    Victor Davis Hanson
















  • Notice: Undefined property: wpdb::$is_admin in /home3/baraka/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 684