Obama Speech

Thursday night and I am back in the mix. Sorry to all that I was unable to write last night. I had a lot to do around the house the last couple of days, putting lights up, making the house like Christmas. I know that D13 has offered an analysis on the Obama speech the other day. I have intentionally not read his post on it. I have also intentionally not listened to any Fox News or anything else for that matter on the subject. I wanted to offer an analysis that was mine and mine alone. Without any thoughts from the MSM clouding my mind and making me pay attention to the parts that I don’t think are important. I have watched the speech, and I have read the speech twice. I will say up front that I think that the strategy and the speech were failures in my eyes. And I can honestly say that I don’t feel that it is simply because I don’t like Obama and nothing he would have said would have been good enough. I was looking for a few things from him. I didn’t get them.

First for the big parts. He is going to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to deal with the insurgency and resurgent Taliban control there. Good for him. A 30k boost in troops could have been the right move to make. At this point I don’t think it is the right move to make for reasons I will address in a bit. 30k, 60k, the entire US military…. whatever. I am still sore about the amount of time that it has taken to come up with a plan and make a decision. He did not explain to me a significantly different plan that warranted the 4 extra months that it took to make a decision and move on it.

He made the statement in the speech, “Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.” To be honest I don’t care if this is true or not. I believe this to be true, for the record. McChrystal’s plan, as I recall, asked for roughly 40k troops beginning in early 2010. However, I expect the Commander in Chief to make a thorough assessment immediately upon taking office. He ran on a platform of getting after it on the war in Afghanistan immediately upon taking office. And he then took ten months to approve this farce of a plan rather than truly re-assessing the situation and formulating a worthy plan. On January 21st, he should have called a meeting of the Joint Chiefs and said, I need a plan on my desk by February 28 that details how we can quickly win this conflict and bring our boys home. He is the President. It’s his job. He doesn’t need a General to tell him that we need to act on the war. He needs to tell them that we need to act, then accept their plan if it is feasible.

And it is not lost on me that the 30,000 troops are nothing more than a appeasement to the Republicans. I have to be honest here. I don’t want the President making any decisions to appease anyone. Ever. His job is not to appease people. His job is to be the Commander in Chief and make the right decisions for this country. Screw the Republicans. If they don’t like his plan, they can try to come up with a better run campaign next time around.

But of course he had to also appease the Democrats. And in doing so he made perhaps the biggest bonehead move of the entire speech. He decided it was a good idea to announce a timetable to the world. We will begin to leave in July of 2011. Brilliant. Just brilliant. Allow me to offer a little background on what really happened in Afghanistan over the last 8 years, since he so conveniently left out this part of the situation.

The Taliban knew ahead of time that they could not stand up to the United States military . Therefore, the had a different plan. When things got tough, the plan was to disperse. Merge into the population and lie low for a couple years. They knew the US would get complacent, reduce troop levels, feel like they have the situation totally under control. And then, BAM, re-emerge rested and re-organized against an unprepared smaller military force. Do some research. That was an organized plan. And it worked brilliantly. The resurgence of the Taliban is not an accident. It was a coordinated lay low and emerge later plan.

So our brilliant strategy, meant to appease the high school dropouts of the United States Congress, is to announce to the Taliban and Al Qaeda their new timetable of lying low and waiting to re-emerge. I think this sort of brilliance should be implemented in all our government agencies. From now on all hostage negotiations will have an announced timetable. Hostage takers will be told, “we are going to wait you out for 34.5 hours. At that time we will pack up our stuff and go home. Throw down your arms and come out now. We only have 31 more hours to get this situation resolved.” I have tried to think of a more boneheaded move to announce, but cannot come up with any. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that we announced our timetable to withdraw from Iraq and immediately saw a reduction in insurgents crossing the border? Is it possible they just figure that at this point they can wait it out and begin again after we go? After all they have the date set to an alarm on their iPhones.

But here is my problem with this plan on the “macro” level. I think that this plan is, in fact, a simple continuation (with a few slight variations) of the status quo. Maybe I am missing something here, but I don’t see any significant changes to the strategy of the last 8 years. We increase troops, train the government forces, root out the Taliban, blah blah blah. I made my position on this issue clear a while ago. I felt that we had to do one of two things. We have to:

  1. Blow the whole strategy up and go with an entirely new plan that is tougher, meaner, more devastating, and more controlling OR
  2. Call the game, chalk it up to experience, and bring our boys and girls home.

I will say that at this point I am for option #2. And here is why. We cannot and will not be able to set a course for what Afghanistan will become. Only the people of Afghanistan can do that. The second we leave, be it 2011 or 2061, the people will determine their own fate. We have to stop believing that we can alter the fundamental underpinnings of cultures that we cannot begin to comprehend. Our form of government will not work in Afghanistan because it is not something that jives well with their culture. The bottom line is that the US needs to revert to a defensive only posture. Secure our own borders and stop meddling and punish harshly those who attempt to attack us going forward. But the US will not take option #2 because to do so would be an admission of defeat in the eyes of most Americans. We don’t like to lose. And we will waste trillions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to find a way to lose without losing.

So we will attempt option #1 without actually attempting option #1. You know what was missing from this speech? Reality. Here are some of the realities of Afghanistan that we are not willing to address:

The “elected” government in Afghanistan is a farce. A fraud. “President” Karzai won a rigged election, and is a key player in all the things that are wrong with the Afghan government. The President made the statement, “Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it’s been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.” He is afraid, as the leader of the most powerful country in the world, to speak the truth. A legitimate government was NOT elected, there is massive corruption IN THAT GOVERNMENT, a drug trade SUPPORTED BY AND PROFITING that government.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban may share a common purpose and have long late night chats on the phone, but they are not one in the same. And you cannot continue to pretend that they are. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that got safe harbor in Afghanistan. We ended that safe haven for the most part. They will be forced to move on. When can “fix” Afghanistan (hypothetically) and Al Qaeda will never come back. They will instead operate from Pakistan, or Somalia, or Libya, or Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela, or Russia, or some other part of the world that likes their cause (and if their cause is to oppose the US, there are plenty who like that cause, some publicly, some not so much). We have to stop pretending that “winning” Afghanistan actually means that Al Qaeda will be defeated. It won’t. They are already rebuilding throughout the world. Somalia is teeming with them.

So if the US insists on staying in Afghanistan, here is what they need to do. Send over about 150,000 more troops, including all of 3rd, 5th, and 7th SFG (Those available, I know that some are already engaged elsewhere). Start on one side of the country and sweep across. Wipe out every insurgent, Taliban, Al Qaeda, supporter, etc. Set up a new secure border that will not allow them to re-enter through Pakistan or anywhere else. While sweeping across the country, burn every poppy field you come across. Eliminate the drug trade as the primary means of funding. Route out the corruption in the Afghanistan government, beginning with the crooks we put in place. Teach the country a new way to support themselves. Tell them that we are now leaving. And threaten them the same way my father used to threaten me. If we have to come into that back seat again, you will wish that I didn’t know what a belt was or that you were paralyzed from the waste down so you wouldn’t feel it.

Remember, I don’t support this plan. I want us out of there. But if you are going to fight a war, you fight it to win, and do so in devastating fashion. War isn’t nice. And you can’t win one by playing nice.

And now I will discuss the speech on the micro level. I will attempt to address some of the things that he said individually. I am sure that some will say I am petty with some of the things I address, but so be it.

Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban, a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

The Taliban was a ruthless government and I have no issue with this statement except for the last part. We turned our attention elsewhere because what happens in another country is none of our damn business. This is a statement that sets up the idea in the heads of the American people that our negligence is partly to blame for the situation that unfolded there. That is false.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against Al Qaeda and those who harbored them, an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98-0; the vote in the House was 420-1.

Yes, in days we declared war on Al Qaeda. Perhaps we should have thought more with our heads instead of our hearts. Perhaps Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 and perhaps they weren’t (I personally believe they were). Those votes were worthless. There was no debate and the penalty for voting “no” was far too high.

For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5, the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies, and the world were acting as one to destroy Al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security. Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan.

Article 5 is a crock of bull. In my defensive only posture stance, an attack on one nation is an attack on that nation. Article 5 is nothing more than a way to give nations that want to wage war an excuse to do so at the slightest provocation.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It’s enough to say that, for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention, and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

He just couldn’t make a speech without taking at least one more shot at Bush.

After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, Al Qaiea’s leadership established a safe haven there.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with Al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

I see this as nothing more than the beginning of making a case for why we should have troops operating in Pakistan as well. He mentions the safe havens in Pakistan several times in the speech. I understand that this is an issue. How about we secure the borders and don’t allow them back in to Afghanistan any longer. I know that is a tough task, but possible (with my massive troop increase).

Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.

Oops, make that two shots at Bush. I find this one a bit offensive. President Bush was a lame duck President at best during the last two years of his Presidency. He couldn’t make the decision to send more troops without vastly jeopardizing the Republican party in the upcoming elections. Obama attempts here to paint a picture of his taking action and making the right decisions that the previous administration couldn’t or wouldn’t make. That is dishonest at best.

Since then, we’ve made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we’ve stepped up the pressure on Al Qaeda worldwide.

Again taking far more credit than he deserves, and everyone knows it except the most far left of pundits.

As your commander-in-chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service.

You owe them more than that, sir, you owe them a strategy that actually has a chance of succeeding. You have not delivered a mission that is that or either of the two things you mentioned.

This review is now complete. And as commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

I was a little bothered by this statement. Because I don’t like that fact that he sat on this decision for so long, then offered 30,000 troops as an appeasement strategy for the right. He is now attempting to appear as though he is a real, live decision maker, who is making the tough calls. I resent that he is taking so much credit for being such when he is not one at all.

We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.

I would say you played your part in creating that highly partisan and polarized backdrop, sir. In fact I think you are one of the top ten antagonists for said polarization. Between the Executive branch and the Congress, the last 8 years of partisanship and polarization are indeed a blight on our country, but let’s not pretend that you didn’t help cause it, and that you are doing absolutely nothing to even begin to curb it. I haven’t seen you putting the brakes on partisanship or polarizing speech and actions from the Congress controlled by your party.

I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

A very interesting statement. I would offer a question to the President. How exactly does whatever we accomplish in Afghanistan do much to increase the security of the United States and the safety of the American people? Oh I understand the nominal gains of winning there, but there are far better ways we could spend our money if security and safety are our true objectives.

I, at this point, skip over the three strategy points he made because I have been clear what an effective strategy must look like. I will address the three criticisms that he chose to address.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we’re better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.

No, we were not attacked by Afghanistan, or even from Afghanistan. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, and they have no borders. This is a bit more like Vietnam than he admits. The government simply does not have the will or the desire to win this war. Much like Vietnam, they will prolong it only long enough to find a way out that they hope will save face. Also, much like Vietnam, we have soldiers in a war zone who are acting with their hands tied by ridiculous rules of engagement, faulty SOP’s, and objectives that don’t make sense and undermine the capabilities of the US military.

All told, by the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. And going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I’ll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

Close runner up as the most idiotic statements in this speech. At what point did someone decide that a war will be fought based on cost analysis? What the President is basically saying here is that we are going to move forward with a plan of fighting a war on a budget. That is just dumb. You fight a war by providing whatever is needed to take the best course of action going forward, costs be damned. “Sir, we can take out the base with 3 Tomahawk missiles and have no troop risk.” “No, we have to think about costs. A few soldiers cost less than those Tomahawks. Let’s find another way that is cheaper.”

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that’s why I’ve made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them, because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons. True security will come for those who reject them.

And while you go about the world talking about eliminating Nuclear weapons, the other countries of the world, such as Iran, have no intention of playing nice in the sandbox with you. The idea of what he is saying sure sounds good, but it shows him to be naive at best, incompetent on top of that.

We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

And those organizations are just as bad as can be. We dump billions into them, and for what? They accomplish nothing other than to erase national sovereignty.

What we have fought for, what we continue to fight for is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

And piling debt on my teenage son is good for him exactly how?

So there you have the official USWeapon review of the speech.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Common Man says:

    USW;

    “He is the President. It’s his job. He doesn’t need a General to tell him that we need to act on the war. He needs to tell them that we need to act, then accept their plan if it is feasible.” Problem with this is that he wouldn’t know a good plan from a bad plan. He has no military experience whatsoever, and futher demostrates his incompitence by stating he has developed one.

    The guy is the biggest joke seen in politics and will only accomplish more deaths of American service men and women.

    I pray for all those families whose sons and daughters will be put into harms way, as well as pray for those sent to fight a useless and waistful battle.

    I am fearful that we will repeat an exit just like Viet Nam and further diminish our stature as a nation.

    This man needs to be impeached, he is a disgrace.

    CM

    • Good Morning, Cm. I wish you would not hold back. Go ahead and tell me what you really think.

      • Common Man says:

        Dear Colonel

        Have been fighting the damn flu for 6 long days now. On the mend, but it has left me in a less than applicable mind set.

        Hope you are well and can fill me in on my post below.

        BTW: We got some of that white stuff here last night, just enough to coat the lawns.

        CM

  2. Common Man says:

    USW, D13;

    It is off topic, but wondered if either of you men new this fellow and what is your opinion of him?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=VP2p91dvm6M

    It is a video of Lt. Colonel Allen West

    Just curious

    Cm

    • CM

      I do hope you get well very soon! I watched your video that you posted. I thought it was very good. I think that this applies to all politicans across the board. Not just the ones in office now. I see this attitude of ” I do what is great for myself and my party”, yeck with everything else.

      Ellen

  3. Common Man says:

    Sorry it did not post right trying again.

    • No, I do not know him….but a very interesting clip. He, of course, will be labeled and ridiculed. The Black Community will call him “Uncle Tom”, the Philosophers will say he is wrong, the left will call him a traitor, and the right will be scared of him. But he is correct…and that is the reality.

      • Pamela Geller over at Atlas Shrugs writes about West often and I believe he is running for a position in Florida???

        I need to research him a little more and donate to his campaign. We need his voice.

    • I know of him, but I do not know him personally. Interesting clip though. I will research him a bit more later.

      USW

  4. USW…..Good article and good write up. I fear that most people do not understand the reality of being on the ground. I don’t know which speech was worse…the one at West Point or the Job Fair yesterday. The revelation from yesterday combined with the revelation from West Point is this.

    (1) The strategy at west Point will result in the death of troops for no purpose.
    (2) The strategy of the Job Fair yesterday will result in the death of a Nation.

    I have some points on your article but want to digest it further. Have a great day, my SF friend and we are stretched very thin…especially the mountains of the Phillipines.

    • D13

      I know that. I have a cousin who is a marine in the Phillipines right now.

      Ellen

      • Yeah, pretty bad situation. The Islamic movement there is full of Taliban and is becoming effective. The violence that is going unreported here is amazing. The media here and the administration do not want to admit that the Taliban and Islamic movement is widening and increasing with our resolve waning.

        Has any one on this blog been to Tahiti lately? If so, tell us how you saw it? especially the beaches and night clubs. Very interesting.

    • D13:

      Lets not forget Indonesia!

      And, south/cental America!

      And, Africa!

      And, ?????

      Yes, we are thin, very, very thin.

      A salute to you this morning Sir.
      JAC

  5. USW

    I have issues with the entire situation. I agree with you on, if we are going to stay in that country we need to hit like a ton a bricks. Throw everything in it and destroy everything from the drug fields to the rebels. Then leave and take not only our military but our money also.
    I fume everytime I hear any politican talking about this war. WE have been in this mess for this long and now you have a voice about it? BS! If you had a different way you should have been talking ( hell yelling) for years now. This goes for either side of the party lines.

    And if anyone believes that the very corrupt government in that country is on the straight and narrow and is support us now, I have a bridge to sell you also.
    Not only that but to believe that IF we actually do this and we defeat them. Then everything is safe. Really? THen you need to look at Yemen, Somila etc who are growing with them everyday.

    My personally thought before this annoucement was that we needed to leave and take our money with us. I am not convinced in anyway that we are going to solve anything in that region of the world.

    • Ellen, you are closer to correct than you think. No need to look at History….it is just that…history and provides no justification of anything. No need to consult academia….geez, you might as will talk to your third grader. No need to send more troops to a war that is not a win situation. USW is correct. To defeat the Taliban is militarily possible but the military needs no binds. Free and unrestricted warfare. It would be ugly and not popular but successful. But what do we gain? we become jailers in another country. We become caretakers of sand, unproductive mountains, and a people that hate us. Leave them alone. Do not invest time, military, or money. Let them root out their own existence and live with the starvation, no medical, and hypocrisy. Bring our troops home….we have more important things to do than mess with that side of the world.

      • D13

        I saw a retired captain on TV about 3 weeks ago, it was real late at night. I am trying to find the link. I thought he had summed it up pretty well. The one statement to a question was

        ” the governments we work with when it comes to war, will never help us” Why? ” Because we will leave and take the money with us”. ” So they will continue to drag their feet and make excuses and laugh all the way to the bank”.

        That really stuck with me.

  6. USW said:

    “Remember, I don’t support this plan. I want us out of there. But if you are going to fight a war, you fight it to win, and do so in devastating fashion. War isn’t nice. And you can’t win one by playing nice.”

    War is an uncivilized action. For the last 75 years the politicos of this country have attempted to civilize war with rules and limited objectives. War is evil and should be an action of last resort. If war is the only option, unleash the military and wage unrestricted destruction upon your opponent. With our soldier’s lives at risk, we should do no less.

    USW you have it right.

  7. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I would say that I am sorry for the following thread-hijack, as it has nothing to do with Afghanistan; however, I would be lying.

    You see, I am no expert on Afghanistan or matters millitary. I know that we probably have no business being there in the first place, and that is pretty much where my informed opinion on that subject reaches its limit.

    My mission right now, because it is much more my area of expertise, is to continue to expose the complete fraud that WAS the religion of AGW. Most of us agree that our own government is completely out of control, and most of us agree that the UN is out of control as well (and is a pretty useless organization to boot). Firmly, completely, and totally debunking the religion of AGW is currently the most effective tool which we as people have to put the brakes on our own government and perhaps even put a complete end to the UN.

    In any battle, especially of David vs. Goliath, you (as David) must find the greatest weakness of Goliath, expose it to the maximum possible extent, and exploit it until Goliath falls.

    Small attacks on lots of Goliath’s perceived weaknesses might hurt Goliath a bit, but it will not bring Goliath down. A concentrated attack on Goliath’s weakest point is the only hope of real success. Right now, the religion of AGW is Goliath’s weakest point. All of that being said, I finally give you my unabashed and unapologetic thread hijack:

    http://energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2665

  8. Good article USW. I so appreciate those of you with military experience that share your insights here with those of us that don’t have any experiences to draw on. My gut reaction is to bring them all home, and like Ellen says, also to remove the financial backing for these corrupt countries. Hell, we’ve got a corrupt enough government here to worry about.

    I truly, truly feel for those men and women currently serving, along with their families, that are getting such mixed messages from their CIC.

  9. Canine Weapon says:
    • v. Holland says:

      I’m not sure what I’m suppose to get from this- is it suppose to be funny, engender pity or just reinforce my opinion that our current President is inexperienced and in way over his head.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Answer D:

        All of the above.

        • Just remember, if Obama abandons post, Biden is your commander in chief.

          • v. Holland says:

            Just remember that Obama choose Biden-another example of ?

            • He chose Biden for the same reason Bush chose Cheney. To ensure that, should anything happen to him, the alternative is far, far worse.

              It’s why none of us liberals even considered impeaching Bush, and why y’all would nuts to try impeaching Obama (aside from the fact that you significantly lack the votes)

              • v. Holland says:

                (aside from the fact that you significantly lack the votes) He He, so where is your 🙂

              • Here it is: 🙂

              • Matt:

                Your memory is Soooooo failing you these days. To much Red Bull I fear. Clogging up your arteries.

                Everyone knows Cheney picked Cheney for V.P..

                Oh, and don’t forget there was a time just before Clinton when 70% of the country wanted Dick Cheney to be the president.

          • v. Holland says:

            Meant to put a 🙂 after that last comment.

          • Matt:

            Thank you for reminding everyone of this. We must be careful of what we ask for.

            Although I gotta say, it would be much less stressful as I could actually laugh out loud at Biden and nobody would criticize me for being a racist or a right wing fascist. They would just laugh along with me.

            We’ve had plenty of actors in the office, why not a comedian?

            • Personally, I would like Kucinich..

              • Common Man says:

                That moron would cause me to laugh so hard I would cry.

                He wouls certainly be a breath of fresh air, since the majority of his objectives are so far fetched he wouldn’t be able to get anything done.

                Hey Matt, you might have a great idea there

                Kucinich for the next President!

              • Have you seen his wife? That right there is enough to get my vote.

                Here, let me help you out: http://media.photobucket.com/image/elizabeth%20kucinich%20sexy/bridie1996/kucinich.jpg

              • Common Man says:

                Matt;

                Attractive, but she is chasing a wallet.

                He is also an advocate for single payer government health care, wants the “Fairness Doctrine”, thinks we would eat better by allowing only “free range” critters and is pushing to ban handgun ownership completely.

                I could go on, but this is enough for me to warrant he be considered a complete nut case.

                CM

              • Matt:

                This may come as a shocker but I would actually prefer him to any of the traitorous jerks we’ve had in recent times.

                I don’t support 99% of his views. He is a complete socialist and will enslave those he thinks he is helping.

                But his style would be refreshing. I don’t think we would have to wade through the nuance or deceit. He is quite honest and open in his views.

                Ron Paul on the other end of the scale would do the same.

                Imagine, a politician who meant what he said, and said what he meant.

  10. Judy Sabatini says:

    Good Morning All

    I have mixed feelings and thoughts about Afghanistan now. When we first went there, I said, yes, go get them, do what has to be done on order to make this country safe. But now, after 8 years, I’m beginning to wonder why we are still there. One side of me says, we have to stay there to finish the job, while the other side says, we need to get out and bring our troops home.

    I think the same way with the Iraqi issue, if I can call it that. Isn’t it time for these countries to start picking up the slack, what I mean is, isn’t it time for them to start taking over their own countries, start doing what needs to be done to make their own countries safe for themselves?

    I’m beginning to see that the longer we stay in both countries, the more dependent they become on us, and the less they’re doing for themselves. What good will it do to send in 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan? My thoughts are, it doesn’t seem to matter how many of our troops are there because, these wars have been going on for 1000’s of years, long before we ever got there, and even after we leave, they’ll still be going on, so what difference does it make how long, and how many troops are there. Can we win militarily, or this is a losing battle? I don’t know.

    When my youngest son was in the Marines, he did 2 tours in Iraq, he lost 5 of his buddies there, something he will never, ever forget for as long as he lives. At first, he was sure going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do, but now he says he feels differently. He said that by being there for the last 8 years hasn’t accomplished anything, then why send in more troops. He thinks it’s time himself to start bringing them home. He said the biggest mistake Obama did, was to announce a time line. He said now, all the Taliban has to do, is to start blending in with the towns people there, kick back, and wait. Then once all our troops are out of there, they will take over again and and he’s pretty sure they will make plans for another attack here, and if that happens, then what will Obama do? Will he do something about it, or will he bend over and take it in the rear?

    My son has been out of the Marines for a year and a half, but is now in the National Guard Reserves along with his older brother who is in full time. They are both in the same unit which is a non-deploy able at this time, but they both know all too well, that can change at any time, but would be willing to go if they are needed, if and when that might/should happen. Both of them are not too happy with this C in C and they both have said that he is not taking the necessary steps in listening to the commanders on the ground, that it took him too long to make up his mind to give Gen. McCrystal what he needed.

    That’s all I have to say about this, those are my thoughts and my son’s thought and what he had to say.

    Hope all is having a good day.

    Judy

    • Judy….the military mission has changed so much over the years. It has moved from a defense posture to a political chess piece. To the politico’s, the chess pieces are expendable. That is the problem with a Civilian government but I do not advocate a military government. You do not want us in charge. Trust me on that.

      Afghanistan is now a political quagmire. Not at all like Vietnam. ( I hate to see that analogy ). However, the reality to the combat soldier is the same. A bullet is a bullet. It is final. The only due process in a war zone is a bullet or some other fast moving projectile that pokes holes.

      Obama did not take long to make up his mind because he was developing strategy. He is NOT a tactician….on the battlefield. He is a politico….bought and paid for. When I first came to this blog, I first took on some of the left thinking….give the man a chance they said. Ok…so I backed off. I am willing to admit mistakes…perhaps I was wrong. But I am not wrong. There is no hope and change for America and I will categorically make the statement that Obama and many in his cabinet, do not have the interest of the people at heart at all….except to do what every first termer wants….a second term. He took his time because he wanted to watch political winds. He did NOT and does NOT have the interest of the soldier at heart today.

      This issue with Afghanistan is hopeless without total victory…..a term that was NEVER used once in a 5,000 word speech at the US Military Academy at West Point. What signal do you think was sent to future Army officers when Victory was never mentioned? Obama is a coward and that is the census among the military.

      Your son losing friends in battle will never be forgotten. I have never forgotten. Having men die in your arms is something that I will never forget. Fulfilling promises to let the wives know that their last thoughts were of home are indelibly etched in my mind. He will never forget and has to deal with it. I stand ready to assist if you deem appropriate….even more so if he deems appropriate. There are ways to cope.

      I am your servant..

      D13

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Thank you very much Col. for you wisdom and words, I Appreciate it very much.

        I thank you for your offer in any assistance to help with my son in case needed. Yes, as of late, things have been bothering him but he is talking with a group of Veterans he belongs to at his university, which seems to be helping him. There is one in particular that he is especially close to, for he is a Vietnam Vet and he knows what my son has gone through, since he has gone through it himself. He has taken the time to help my son cope with what he has seen and been though when he was in Iraq.

        My son didn’t seem to be don’t want to say bothered, but it didn’t seem to affect him all that much at first. But for the past couple years, things have come up and he has talked more about when he was over there. Although, there are some things he said he would never talk about, while there are other things he is willing to talk about. He said the things he won’t talk about is something that we might not be able to understand, and that’s why he is in that Veterans group at his university. It really seems to have helped him open up more.

        I guess like you said, having someone die in your arms is something that is etched into your mind forever. He is coping better and is keeping his mind occupied with his schooling right now, which is in pre-med in the hopes of getting into med school in about a year to a year and a half. He said he has to keep focused on what he’s doing now and cannot be preoccupied with what happened while in Iraq. He, himself said that it is not good for him to dwell on the past, and that he has to let it go, but he will never forget his buddies and those that he served with.

        If you go to you tube and type in the 1/4 video, you will see what he and this SGT Chapman put together and the friends at the end that he added on in honor of them.

        Never mind, I can put the video link up myself, then if you’re interested you can watch it yourself.

        Again, thank you sir for you input and help. You are a wise man and I always enjoy reading your post.

        Judy

        • PTSD is nothing to fool with….talking to a Vietnam Vet is cool for we went through very trying times then…I am glad for him but standing by if needed.
          It is a brotherhood. USW would be there as well.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            I thank you again Col., as well to others who have made that offer, and one of them being G-Man who is willing to talk with my son if needed. But, like I said, he seems to have things under control for now, and I hope for his sake, it will remain under control.

            The Vets on here who are willing to help and talk with my son and me about anything that might be bothering him, or me, you have my heartfelt gratitude for your kindness and I will be forever grateful for all offers.

          • You could certainly count on me as well, as D13 said. It is a brotherhood.

            USW

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Thanks USW, I will certainly keep that in mind. You are all such a great group here, I really don’t know what I would without your site here USW.

              All of you have become such good friends to me these past few months, I will never forget any of you.

              You are all so loved by me, that it does my heart good to know that I can count on any of you should the occasion ever be needed.

              Thank you all so much.

              Judy

  11. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I have a really important question regarding the war in Afghanistan.

    Do we even have a CLEARLY DEFINED MILITARY OBJECTIVE?

    If we do not have a clearly defined military objective, sending more troops doesn’t really accomplish anything… no objective means to way to measure accomplishment, yes?

    • Peter…..I took a regiment to Afghanistan in 2003. There was no defined objective then other than secure large areas of territory and fight whomever came out. Win by attrition. HA. Never happen. There is only one way to fight a guerilla war….to play with the rats, you must become one. Live in the same gutter, eat the same food….and kill them.

      USW stated a clearly defined objective in his post. This surge will not work like Iraq. The surge in Iraq had a clearly defined objective and it is working quite well. It appears to me, that the objective in Afghanistan is what every war commander knows to do….Seek out and destroy the enemy. But only do so with rules of engagement. There should be NO rules of engagement at all…None. No restricted fire zones at all….free fire. Kill the enemy. Period. No quarter, no prisoners. Kill. If civilians choose to stay where the enemy is…too bad. That is an objective of the military. We do not care for hearts and minds. We are trained to destroy…..not baby sit. Not pretty is it.

      The Afghan strategy is to send in troops to rid pockets of resistance. Ok…we can do that. They run into Pakistan and rearm and get healthy….then we leave. To answer your question directly….No, we do not have a clearly defined objective.

    • Until we change our focus, war has been and always will be an extension of politics.

      Therefore, using the current paradigm of war, the correct question is whether we have a “clearly definded political” objective.

      Without out that there can be no clearly defined military objective.

      A tactic/strategy of send help and then leave is NOT A CLEAR POLITICAL OBJECTIVE.

      To be clear here, when I say “policital objective” I am talking about our “national interest” as expressed in political goals and objectives. Not the kind of “political objectives” that focus on reelection and party agendas.

      • JAC,

        Have had a long but productive(6-point)day. After reading down to #20, I think you have made the most important point. Bush did not have a political objective, and perhaps, did not need one. The planners of the attack were living in “safe harbor” there, so I think it was right to take the war to them.

        Obama seems to be using a “Bush Lite” version of military tactics, with the left and right fringes screaming, but are most accepting as good strategy.

        “30,000, yeh, that’s what I would have sent, but then I would have kept Brett Farve.”
        Appeal to the sheeple is a sound strategy.

        USW,

        An outstanding article, very dis-appointing that only five have voted so far(Matt, I told you to give the devil his due). On the whole, I agree with your assessment. You and D13 have a perspective and experiences I can never match, I thank you for sharing. Of course, I can’t totally agree.

        “You wrote 2. Call the game, chalk it up to experience, and bring our boys and girls home.

        I will say that at this point I am for option #2”

        I think Obama is looking for a “paper victory”. Write some numbers down and say we/he won and go home. If the Taliban plays smart, they will do as you have thought. A dumb(but likely) Taliban play will be to ramp-up the violence as our departure draws near, daring Obama to delay leaving and resume a drawn-out conflict. And I bet $20 that there is a progressive(don’t you just love that word)increase in violence, in the last months of departure, and Obama pulls out anyway, and declares victory*^&%$#@&
        Rewrite, Obama declares we have met our objective, blah, blah, blah.

        I just wonder, when you talk about Afghanistan, you have to include Pakistan(note to Biden, they are the ones with nuclear weapons). Bush pissed in some of their oatmeal, cream-of-wheat, or whatever-the-hell
        they have for breakfast when he sent Predators across their border and killed terrorist and innocents. And Obama is expanding this tactic, just announcing the CIA is allowed to increase their Predator program.

        And Iran seems intent on crashing the event, like they say, it’s not a party until something gets broken. Some of those “broken”, will be US soldiers, who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, and are being “played’, like pawns on a chess board.

        DAMN YOU TO HELL, Mr. President.

    • Yes the strategy is to patrol, patrol, patrol, fire fight, patrol, patrol, patrol, fire fight, patrol, patrol, patrol, fire fight ad nauseum.

      The former soviet union must be laughing at us.

      • Hysterically.

        • D13,

          Thanks for sending up some of that white stuff. I just got back from a walk in the woods with my dog and it’s starting to get deep. I’ll probably have to get my snow shoes out sometime this month.

  12. The troops are there in prep for invasion of Iran, nothing more.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I disagree BF,

      I don’t think that Obama has the balls to piss off his far-left base by starting a war with Iran.

      They are already pissed that he isn’t out of Iraq and Afghanistan and hasn’t closed Gitmo yet 🙂

      • He will not start the war, Peter.

        Israel will.

        The rest of the scenario will play out like a rock rolling down a mountain.

        • I don’t think he gives two hoots about Israel and in fact, would not support them so he can play nice with the Arab nations.

          • It matters not about Obama.

            The rock down the mountain is that Iran will see any attack on it as an American attack. It will respond in that manner.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          BF,

          Since you postulate that Israel will start the war, and Obama will claim that the US MUST participate, then you would speculate that this may happen relatively soon?

          Does Obama have information that Israel is preparing to do this in the near future, and therefore the troop movement is happening now in preparation?

          • No, USA will not participate. It will be targeted.

            I have no date – there are dependencies that are very large variables – however, the moment Israel finds that the USA/EEU will not act militarily to enforce sanctions, they will act.

        • No sir, I believe you are wrong. There will be no shot fired by Israel. No one is going to do anything until Iran does it. I know you disagree but Iran is not anyone’s friend and they will fire the first shot….no matter what history has shown. When that happens, then I hope we have a President in office that will move with a clear and defined objective. Iran will not fire at the US. Iran cannot hurt us anymore than give us a bloody nose and not much of one at that. Iran will get the nuke and they will tip their missiles. I also believe you know this BF…you do not want it to happen, but I believe you know this are are rolling the dice. We nor the world community will stop Iran. Neither Russia or China will. Iran will have the nuke. Iran has a definite desire to be the new Islamic State. Their army is only dangerous to their neighbors and not the United States. Saudi will not stop them, Egypt will not stop them, Syria will not stop them, and India will not stop them. Iran will swing and swing at Israel to get them to fire the first shot but Israel knows that if they (Israel) fires first, they will be isolated from the world and no one, including the US will come to their aid. But, if the first shot is fired either through sponsored warfare or Iran itself….then Israel will have allies including Syria and Egypt. Iran will continue to fund Hezbollah and no one will stop that. Israel will have to settle their own disputes with the Palestinians that will be suddenly be funded more so by Iran.

          Iran has an agenda and it is not peaceful.

          • I find it interesting that you are required (and admit to it) to discount all of history to support your claim.

            Iran may become a nuke power in the future – but that is worthless speculation – we know they are not today.

            Today, only Israel is the nuke power – that is not speculation.

            If you are afraid of Iranian nukes in the future, the West must deal with Israeli nukes now.

            • BF

              My friend, you continue to fail to reconcile the difference between the Persians of history and the modern religious zealots who now contol the region.

              To use history as a simple excuse to NOT consider potential future events that appear possible would be irrational.

              • To assume that the current administration is irrational is irrational.

                There is nothing in the history of Iran for 300 years to assume something different today.

              • I imagine that they thought the same of the US at one time. There was a time in our history where our history didn’t show our future.

                Ignoring the reality on the ground today based on historical perspective is dangerous. Take all into account, my friend, not just history, but the reality today as well.

              • Really?

                I would argue that, indeed, the history of the USA – especially since 1861 – foretold the path and direction of the USA.

              • Yes, but what if you started in 1776?

                If the America of 1861 were concievable to our founders in 1776 I think many would have hanged themselves.

              • I’m missing your point.

                Do you want to go back to Roman times?

                The closer to current, the better sampling of predictions of future action.

                One need not go back even a generation to find wars and belligerence of the USA.

                I would suggest that if one needs to go back 12 generations or more to find such belligerence in (who regard as) enemy, I’d tend to suggest it is the former that is far more likely to be the belligerent one than the other.

                What would you figure?

              • My point is quite simple.

                The past is a guide to potential future actions.

                It IS NOT an absolute determinant, however.

                Past behavior does not guarantee any particular future behavior.

                One would be wise to consider the possibility of that behavior changing in the future.

                Especially given a change in the nature of the players. The zealotry of the radical Islamic clerics was not a major factor historically among the Persians. It is now.

                Religious zealots with the power of Nukes. Zealots who believe dieing for their religion is a quick way to heaven. Seems to me that recognizing that fact as a potential danger is a very rational thing.

                To claim there is absolutely no potential threat because this particular people have not invaded anyone in the past 300 years is irrational in my view.

                History has shown us that the peaceful nature of a nation can change on a dime. Why would we consider this particular people, country, nation, etc; the one exception?

                Are the Iranian leaders somehow immune to the corruption of power? I think not.

                I will continue to view them as the rattlesnake. I will respect them, all the while recognizing them as potentially dangerous.

              • BF,

                I have no guest commentary for tonight so I will address my thoughts on Iran and your line of thinking as tonight’s exercise.

                USW

              • BF”

                But who’s standard do we use to determine what is “rational”?

                I do not presume them to be irrational, from their own perspective. But that is the key. I DO NOT KNOW their TRUE perspective.

                I do presume them to be “potentially” dangerous, given the history of humanity, which includes the Persians. Your 300 years is but a short time out in the history of man’s propensity for doing evil to others. Add religion to the mix and it becomes a very unstable brew.

                One does ignore the rattlesnake just because it has not bitten us. One respects it for what it is, “potentially dangerous”.

              • One does not ignore the rattlesnake ……….

                Bad fingers. Go to your room.

              • If we ignore history, what use is it to study?

                300 years is longer in history than the entire history of the USA.

                I’ll take my chances on it being relevant.

              • Who’s ignoring history?

                Thousands of years of war upon our neighbors for various reasons and excuses.

                Nations of peaceful people marching off to kill their neighbors all at the behest of some “new” leader who has delusions of grandeur.

                History is a guide it is not the grail. If there is a lesson to be learned from history it is that we should never fall asleep while surrounded by lions, tigers and bears.

              • Well said JAC, Well said.

                We must be rational and realistic in our approach. It isn’t about winning a debate by using history as future fact, it is about seeing the future for its most likely scenarios.

          • D13:

            OK, one from my dried up brain pan.

            Why should I give a plug nickle what happens to Israel?

            I see no strategic (i.e. National Security) purpose for continuing to defend this country, regardless of its transgressions.

            Tell me where I am wrong.

            • Common Man says:

              Guys;

              Maybe I should keep my nose out of this, since I am no military genius, but I don’t believe the “the little Hitler” in Iran has the moxy to swing at anyone first. I beleive he is just doing everything he can to stir things up with the hopes that someone will strike first; therefore allowing him to retaliate.

              Since we don’t have a CIC who knows how too, or even wants to act like he knows how too, act like a true CIC, out best bet is to get out; out of both Iraq and Afganistan.

              Israel can pretty much take care of themselves. And we should let everyone else do the same.

              I do hope BF is wrong.

              • Me too.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Hey CM

                Hope you’re feeling better now.

                Glad to see you back.

              • YOu are partially right and partially wrong. It comes down to power and clerics in Iran. I will agree briefly with BF on Iran only on one thing…..the current age of the population is very young and much more progressive. If Iran can hold on long enough, it will change within. However, with the inflation it is facing, the unemployment it now has, the internet, radio free Europe and radio free America blasting away. and its infrastructure crumbling around its ears….and, you must add in the passing away of the older clerics….Iran will be a much more moderate country; however, its current leadership and clerical does not want to lose power. To keep power, they need a distraction. Playing the world for a sucker as they are now, Iran is hoping someone will swing first. But it will not happen….when that does not happen, then Iran will take the next step and arm itself with a nuke to draw that punch. When no one bites, the next step is aggression on a military scale. They have no other weapon. Economically, they cannot hurt anyone but themselves.

                However, this is MY opinion.

              • A recent interview I saw being given by a recent (post election) Iranian exile said the Revolutionary Guard are now the power behind the presidency not the clerics. It is they who are pushing for the bomb. One certainly has to wonder what else they want.

            • JAC….can’t tell you that you are wrong. Please do not misunderstand me….I am not an advocate of Israel. Never have been. However, right or wrong, Un or no UN, 10,000 years of history will not erase the reality. There is only ONE reality. Israel is there. It is not going away and there is no power that can defeat it in that region.

              I do not give a rats patootie what happens to Israel. Our administration will continue to provide support BUT I will be willing to bet all of BF’s gold and call his inside straight that if Iran swings first and the United States does not respond, Israel will have some very interesting allies that will clandestinely support it. Syria, on the world stage, will be against Israel, but will allow its territory to be used while denying Iran. Egypt will follow suit and so will Saudi Arabia. You will then have Muslims and Jews fighting side by side to eliminate Iran….then it will be back to square one. The Arabian Peninsula does NOT want Iran to be in power.

              Iran has the power to be an aggressive nuclear nation within one year….maybe less. You will find that they are lying through their beetle juice stained teeth about acquiring nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Only time will tell. Want to study history…..forget three hundred years. Read about the Persian Empire and its peaceful roots.

              Study history but do not rely on it…it is but one aspect of reality and a very small one at that.

              • D13:

                My Texican friend, I did not misunderstand you. I did not intend to accuse you of being one of the blind supporters of Israel. I do remember you posting a contrary view previously.

                I was simply asking that based on your view of that part of the world if there was some reason I should care that I was missing.

                The politics of such a view is obvious. But in reality, in terms of what it trully means to the security of our nation of free men and women, I see no reason to be so blind in our support of Israel.

                Just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing some global strategery.

                IN fact, I think pulling out of the region would be the biggest plus in the long run. It exposes the true rats for the rats they are. It allows the alliances you mention to flourish. It allows ancient tribal and ethnic rivalries to reveal themselves by removing the strawman enemy.

                So many in the world simply don’t understand why the Arabs allow us to have bases. The think it is all about he monarchs maintaining their power. They don’t need our army to protect them from their subjects. They use us to deter the new Persian empire.

                You see Colonel, I studied all the history. In fact the key to winning in Afghanistan lies in history. There were in fact two who succeeded. But to apprecieate its usefulness we need to understand the context in which historical events occured and compare that context to the present. It is the context which has changed these past 50 years with regard to the Persians and the Muslims.

                As I said, it is a toxic brew to be respected as “potentially dangerous”. We would be fools to simply sit by and think they just want to be left alone. But as with the snake, there is no reason to poke, prod, or otherwise harrass the reptile. But should it approach with the obvious intent of striking, we must remove its head, hang its skin on the fence, and feed the rest to the pigs.

                And with that my dear Colonel, I leave you to shovel all that sunshine from your driveway.

                Best of wishes.
                JAC

  13. Judy Sabatini says:
  14. Hijack, sorry.

    The left strategy sessions: what are the ways we can corrupt. Unbelievable.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/soros-eyes-secretaries

    • We lost the Republic a long time ago. Politics is becoming more and more acrimonious and elections are filled with fraud. I’m not surprised that there is an effort under way to get Democratic Secretaries of State in office so that they can overlook ACORN and other fraud. Nothing surprises me anymore. Perhaps the UN can monitor the next election if we make it to 2012 before the collapse.

  15. This is good…

    The real heat from Copenhagen:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,665182,00.html

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      If you are going to go to Copenhagen in December for a boring (and now largely discredited) conference, you might as well find SOME way to enjoy yourself, right! 🙂

  16. Judy Sabatini says:
  17. v. Holland says:

    Have a great weekend.

  18. Judy Sabatini says:

    For those who might like the Vienna Boys Choir singing Ave Maria.

  19. There’s another way to interpret the recent foreign incursions by the US. Much like every empire before it, the US is slowly losing (or, in fact, has already lost) the ability to project its power beyond its own borders. That is a sign that the collapse has already started. In the future the US government will grow increasingly incapable of projecting its power to its own citizens (particularly in rural areas and parts of the country far from DC, politically and geographically – ie: the mountain states).

    The collapse will involve last-ditch, likely violent attempts by the government to maintain or re-establish authority over the fringe areas of its jurisdiction, but in the end the government’s presence will simply disappear and the people will be left to live their own lives. There will be some chaos left behind in the vacuum in the short term, which will quickly resolve itself as the states assume more of the responsibilities once held by the national government and band together in smaller coalitions.

    • DK

      You propose an interesting possibility.

      I would caution however drawing an absolute comparison between past “empires” and that of the USA.

      All previous empires were based solely on holding and controlling terrain. There is an ideological component to the American empire that makes it different.

      However, I agree we are paying a price for acting like those of the past. That is thinking that “projecting power” requires coersive force and use of military interventions.

      DK II.: Have you read my recommended “Day of Empire” by Amy Chua yet? As you are this thought train right now I suggest you add her work to your tool box.

      Best wishes
      JAC

  20. Judy Sabatini says:


    A funny I was just sent.

    Stuttering

    A teacher is explaining biology to her 4th-grade students. “Human beings are the only animals that stutter,” she said.

    A little girl raised her hand. “I had a kitty-cat who
    stuttered.” The teacher, knowing how precious some of these stories could become, asked the girl to describe the incident.

    “Well,” she began, “I was in the backyard with my kitty, and the Rottweiler that lives next door got a running start and, before we knew it, he jumped over the fence into our yard!”
    “That must’ve been scary,” said the teacher.

    “It sure was,” said the little girl. “My kitty raised her back, went ‘Ffffff!, Ffffff!, Ffffff!,’ but before she could say ‘F**k!,’ the Rottweiler killed her!”

    The teacher had to leave the room.

  21. Especially given a change in the nature of the players. The zealotry of the radical Islamic clerics was not a major factor historically among the Persians. It is now.

    JAC,

    I believe you seriously misread the clerics.

    These men are rich, enjoy the flesh of plenty of women, and reach of power.

    They are essentially no different then the filth in Washington.

    Religious zealots with the power of Nukes. Zealots who believe dieing for their religion is a quick way to heaven.

    They believe that no more then the Pope does, or Obama.

    They have leveraged their position to enrich themselves. They are no more eager to leave this world then you.

    Seems to me that recognizing that fact as a potential danger is a very rational thing.

    They are under no misconceptions. They would rather have two women in bed now then 100 virgins in imaginary heaven.

    The mantra may play well upon the unwashed (heavens know how well it worked for the Catholic church) – but these are MEN. They are not much different then any other men.

    To claim there is absolutely no potential threat because this particular people have not invaded anyone in the past 300 years is irrational in my view.

    Review the situation.

    These guys control essentially everything.

    These guys have essentially anything they want.

    And you stand before me to argue they want something????

    I think you place too much strength in dogmatic rhetoric, sir.

    History has shown us that the peaceful nature of a nation can change on a dime. Why would we consider this particular people, country, nation, etc; the one exception?

    I await some historical example of a nation – on a dime – moving from centuries of peace to risking total obliteration of war.

    I find NONE.

    Are the Iranian leaders somehow immune to the corruption of power? I think not.

    JAC, their corruption is the cornerstone of my argument.

    • Flag,

      Sorry, I know you didn’t address this to me, but after months of research, I think I understand….

      Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide…
      Let’s see now…
      No Christmas
      No Easter
      No television
      No cheerleaders
      No nude Women
      No car races
      No football
      No soccer
      No pork BBQ
      No hot dogs
      No burgers
      No chocolate chip cookies
      No lobster
      No nachos
      No Beer nuts
      No Beer !!!!!!!!
      No alcohol of any kind
      Rags for clothes and towels for hats.
      Constant wailing from the guy next-door because he’s sick and there are No doctors and his brother just died.
      Constant wailing from the guy in the tower.
      More than one wife.
      You can’t shave.
      Your wives can’t shave..
      You can’t shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung.
      Your bride is picked by someone else.
      She smells just like your donkey.
      Then they tell you that when you die it all gets better!

      I mean, really, is there a mystery here?

      PS, like any good sniper, I am crawling into my hole for as long as it takes to be safe. Als, damn tired.
      A good night to you, my friend.

      • She smells just like your donkey

        Good sir.

        From very personal experience, she does not.

        She smells like the most precious love, companion, dream, woman, human, person, you can imagine.

        Her scent – now just a mist in a my dream – will haunt me for the rest of my life.

  22. Canadian Broadcasting Corp (CBC) offers this excellent editorial on Climategate.

    Better late then never. Better late and utterly stabbing then early with a wet noodle.

  23. I am not going to say anything here on this subject.

    I am only going to say that we need to pray earnestly for all those young men and women in our armed forces who are there or will be there shortly.

%d bloggers like this: