Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Military Leaders Nervous About Prospect Of An Obama Presidency

But don’t worry, Obama’s people are saying he’s no hippie.

Members of Washington’s military and defense establishment are expressing trepidation about Sen. Barack Obama, as the Illinois senator comes closer to winning the Democratic presidential nomination and leads in national polls to become commander in chief.

But his backers, including a former Air Force chief of staff, say the rookie senator believes in a strong military, and with it, a larger Army and Marine Corps.

“Any military person who concludes he’s a left-wing, hair-on-fire, Kumbaya child of the ‘60s has sadly misunderestimated him, to use George Bush’s term,” said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak.

Of course, when Obama doesn’t shy away from appearing in public with anti-war left-wing terrorists like members of the Weather Underground those fears are sort of justified.

And this isn’t just about Obama being a liberal, either.

Still, the mostly conservative retired officers, industry executives and current defense officials interviewed by The Washington Times cite Mr. Obama’s lack of experience in national security. They also point to his determination to pull American combat units from Iraq at a time when a troop surge has reduced violence, damaged al Qaeda and allowed the Iraqi government to progress toward Sunni-Shia-Kurd reconciliation.

“We’re very concerned about his apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam to the United States,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who is pro-Iraq war and a Fox News analyst. “A lot of retired senior officers feel the same way.”

Mr. Obama also has stirred concern in national security circles by pledging to talk to the leaders of rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, without preconditions.

His urging of the Bush administration to conduct air strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan without its approval is privately derided inside the Pentagon as the way to ruin relations with a good ally. Pakistan will not allow U.S. combat troops to operate on its soil.

These military leaders are worried that Obama would be clueless as commander-in-chief.  And they’ve got a point give what we know of Obama’s foreign policy pronouncements thus far.

Comments

None of this matters.  He can just speak to our enemies and they will be so enthralled with his words that they will..

A. Faint on the spot
B. Stop hating the U.S.
C. Pay more taxes
D. All the above

I am just suprised that the brilliant minds in the Pantagon did not realize how this will play out..

atease


atease

atease on February 26, 2008 at 04:44 pm

If elected, he’ll be exponentially worse than Mr. crisis of confidence himself,Jimma Carter.


All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth. —Aristotle ...

Joel on February 26, 2008 at 04:46 pm
Avatar for correctio

Correction:  one former military guy who now works for Fox News is nervous about Obama.

correctio on February 26, 2008 at 05:37 pm

Where is my comments? I sent them earlier this evening. Please respond.

watashiwa on February 26, 2008 at 05:44 pm

Where is my comments?

B O, poof...?


“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

realitybasedbob on February 26, 2008 at 05:51 pm

Not talking to our “enemies” hasn’t gotten us anywhere. It is time someone with some “common sense” took over and cut out the ridiculous “my way or no way” foreign policy which has made any efforts at diplomacy totally futile.

watashiwa on February 26, 2008 at 05:52 pm

None of this matters.  He can just speak to our enemies and they will be so enthralled with his words that they will..

You were not far off with your list! He will appease our enemies, promise to support their causes, offer financial aid and in other ways win them over as friends of the new-socialist, Muslim sensitive America. Now we all know they cannot be trusted and will turn on him when necessary, but I assure you that he believes by the strength of his personality, he persuasive use of words, the color of his skin, his Muslim father and Muslim friends and his being the second coming of JFK and Billy Jeff, he can win the day. Yes, it will also require turning on Israel and unilateral surrender of our military presence in the Middle East; but I am convinced he believes he is the man of this moment in history and can bring world peace and even if some force of law is required, American unity. Worse, Congress will give him a lot of power and support as they don’t want to suffer the ire of the electorate if they frustrate his salvation of the world.

I fear only a major scandal in his camp will stop this great quest for power, his mystique and movie star compassionate image are that strong.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 26, 2008 at 05:59 pm

Not talking to our “enemies” hasn’t gotten us anywhere. It is time someone with some “common sense” took over and cut out the ridiculous “my way or no way” foreign policy which has made any efforts at diplomacy totally futile.

How far did it get Billy Jeff? He spoke to Arafat, forced Israel to give him 98% of what he wanted and he still lost, because Islam wants Israel destroyed. You cannot negotiate with monsters, all you can to is appease them until they kill you, or you must kill them. It is a Pollyanna dream that talking to these evil, murderous scum will achieve anything. You can only give them what they want to buy short periods of less numbers of murders per day, they give nothing in return, even Islam tells them to lie and make peace, but that Allah does not ask them to ever keep their word in such matters.

Oh, about not talking to them, we killed a bunch of the murderous bastards, so it accomplished something.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 26, 2008 at 06:04 pm

watashiwa - Not talking to our “enemies” hasn’t gotten us anywhere.

Sure, go talk to them.

Meanwhile, we’ll continue kill the most radical elements while working with the local Muslims. We recognize a deadly enemy when we see one, even if you don’t.

likwidshoe on February 26, 2008 at 06:12 pm

watashiwa, what do you think will happen if we talk to our enemies..?  Before you answer, please reference recent history..

atease


atease

atease on February 26, 2008 at 07:03 pm

atease we will talk to our enemies and then we will try appeasement. Then our dnc leaders will be shocked when they find out it will get us no where.


Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

goon on February 26, 2008 at 07:35 pm

Worse than that goon, much worse.  Try to appease Kim or Fred (as Glenn Beck calls him), and I might even throw Putin in there today.  What happens..?  In today’s environment, weapons transfer, or are born to regimes that will use them or pass to someone else that will. 

What really kills me is these silly folk don’t listen.  They don’t hear Fred say Israel will disapear, don’t hear Syria had a cache of nuclear materials from Kim.  They only hear a silver tongued Senator’s orations about nothing.  They hear the words HOPE and CHANGE and pretend to think it means what they believe it means.

Sorry to rant.  Every once in a while I ....

atease


atease

atease on February 26, 2008 at 08:11 pm
Avatar for Lestat

watashiwa, what do you think will happen if we talk to our enemies..?  Before you answer, please reference recent history..

We never refused to talk to the Soviet Union.  In fact we put in a special phone.  To refuse to talk shows weakness.

Lestat on February 26, 2008 at 08:29 pm

Lestat, you are better than this attempt..

Why do you think I added the phrase “recent history”?  N. Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, all good countries that will honor their word, right..?  These are the enemies we are typing about.

USSR expired in 1989.  Almost 20 years ago.

atease


atease

atease on February 26, 2008 at 08:48 pm

We never refused to talk to the Soviet Union.  In fact we put in a special phone.  To refuse to talk shows weakness.

Yeah, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, speak softly but carry a big stick.  As far as the USSR is concerned, nothing happened to stem the cold war until Reagan came along and practiced Roosevelts philosophy.


The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

docdave on February 26, 2008 at 09:08 pm
Avatar for Lestat

Why do you think I added the phrase “recent history”?  N. Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, all good countries that will honor their word, right..?  These are the enemies we are typing about.

Yeah, you are clever.  All of these countries are much bigger threats than the USSR.  They could all destroy our country in a second.

20 years ago doesn’t count as recent history?

You are a fucking moron.

Lestat on February 26, 2008 at 09:14 pm
Avatar for Lestat

But don’t worry, Obama’s people are saying he’s no hippie.

By the way Rob, you are a total dick head.  By Obama’s people, you obviosly mean retired 4 star general?

Lestat on February 26, 2008 at 09:50 pm

LMAO.  I see Rob hit close to the mark again.

See Lestat spin.

Carrick on February 26, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Avatar for Lestat

LMAO.  I see Rob hit close to the mark again.

See Lestat spin.

By pointing out that Rob is dishonest?

All the people that say Obama is not qualified are senior military officials.

But the people who say he is not are just supporters.

I know you have no personal experience with that Carrick, but that is a senior military officer.

Lestat on February 26, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Lestat - We never refused to talk to the Soviet Union.  In fact we put in a special phone.  To refuse to talk shows weakness.

Would you like to put in a special phone for al Qaeda?

likwidshoe on February 26, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Avatar for Lestat

Would you like to put in a special phone for al Qaeda?

Why not?  Are you scared of them?

How can we take a surrender without talking to them?

I’m not scared of speaking to anybody.

Lestat on February 26, 2008 at 10:32 pm

These military leaders are worried that Obama would be clueless as commander-in-chief.  And they’ve got a point give what we know of Obama’s foreign policy pronouncements thus far.

he’ll fuck up just like bush did, mccain will if he has the chance, and so on. yay.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on February 26, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Avatar for HG

Why not?  Are you scared of them?

How can we take a surrender without talking to them?

I’m not scared of speaking to anybody.

I think this belong on the Liberal=ignorant post.

HG on February 26, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Avatar for Hannitized

Sure, go talk to them.

Meanwhile, we’ll continue kill the most radical elements while working with the local Muslims. We recognize a deadly enemy when we see one, even if you don’t.

Translation:

“Sure, go talk to them.

Meanwhile, well continue to kill the most radical elements while we work with them.”

Got it?  Likwid is going to criticize you (Dem) for talking to them, while they (Rep) talk to them.  Because it’s not talking to them that’s the issue, it’s when WE talk to them that is the issue.

Hannitized on February 26, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Avatar for Hannitized

You cannot negotiate with monsters, all you can to is appease them until they kill you, or you must kill them. It is a Pollyanna dream that talking to these evil, murderous scum will achieve anything.

So I am confused?  Likwid just said that you will talk to them.  So why are the guys Likwid wants to talk to any different that those Lestat want’s to talk to?

Were killing people in Iraq.  Which of those people are the monsters who only talk to us long enough to kill us slowly in small numbers?

Keep the story straight fellas.

Hannitized on February 26, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Lestat - Why not?  Are you scared of them?

No. I just have nothing to say to them. I only want them dead.

I’m not scared of speaking to anybody.

Good for you. Take a bow.

likwidshoe on February 26, 2008 at 11:31 pm

To clear up: Meanwhile, we’ll continue kill the most radical elements while working with the local Muslims. We recognize a deadly enemy when we see one, even if you don’t.

The most radical elements = deadly enemies.

1+ billion Muslims = not all deadly enemies.

There is no talking with or negotiating with deadly enemies. The only usefulness in any talk with them is intel. They are deadly enemies and this is a war.

Hopefully that clears up some things for the denser liberals out there who don’t understand the nature of deadly enemies.

likwidshoe on February 26, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Avatar for Hannitized

The most radical elements = deadly enemies.

Ahh, I see now.  You mean like those deadly enemies in Iraq!  Because why would Bush attack those “not all deadly enemies” if they were, well, not deadly?  That would make no sense right?

It was so clear for us to know which Iraqi was deadly when we invaded them, right?  I mean, we only had to paint a star on their jacket and then we knew.  You, are a non deadly one, and you over there, you are a deadly one....bang.

I get it.  Thanks for clearing that up for me Likwid.  Because for a minute there its sure sounded like you don’t know what in the heck youre talking about.

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 12:01 am
Avatar for Hannitized

quote]No. I just have nothing to say to them. I only want them dead.

So you understand now, Lestat?  Ol Likwid here seems to know who to talk to and when.

Heck, why doesn’t the CIA just come swoop him up and drive him down the streets of Iraq so we can figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are?  It’s really THAT simple.  Didn’t you know?  Silly Lestat.

Jeez.  This whole time I thought Al Qaeda was the bad guys.  I didn’t have any idea it was the Iraqis who were the “deadly enemies”.

You get it now Lestat, Iran = Bad, Iraq = Bad, i mean, Good, now, maybe.  But don’t fret, Likwid knows when and who is bad in Iraq, if in fact they are, I mean were.

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 12:09 am
Avatar for Hannitized

And remember Lestat, the war is defending our freedoms in Iraq.  Because there were so many Iraqis who were deadly there, deadly to our freedoms and our way of life.

But now, now that we have invaded them, guys like Likwid know who those bad guys were and killed all of them, now, only bad guys come in from other areas.  So now it’s ok to talk to Iraqis, and work with them and put them in power because they are the non deadly ones.  Didn’t you know?

Iran on the other hand, they are deadly.  Guess how many times they bombed us?  Do you know how many of those 9/11 terrorists came from Iran?  Yeah....that many!

Good thing Likwid is here to straighten you out.  So remember, when he gets snotty and insulting, it’s because he is THAT smart.  Yup.

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 12:21 am
Avatar for Hannitized

So why don’t we clear this up now Likwid?  Why don’t you show us the folly of our ways and give us names?

Give us names of who we can and can not talk to!

Tell me who in Iran is a “not all deadly” Muslim and who is a deadly Muslim.  Make it simple for us, so the next time I talk to Maya Soetoro I can tell her to tell Barack who he should and shouldn’t talk to.

You are this close to contributing to the safety of your country.  Let’s see if you have the courage to stand up for what you believe in and provide this valuable information.

I will be patiently waiting for your response.  But I won’t be holding my breath!

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 12:33 am
Avatar for Hannitized

And since you and I know Likwid won’t give us any names and clear this up, let’s put the final nail in the coffin, shall we?

If Likwid only want’s the deadly Muslims dead, why is he criticizing Obama’s statements that he want’s to go after the real terrorists in Pakistan?

I will tell you why.  Because Likwid, like so many Republicans are full of bird droppings.  They talk a good talk, but they lack the courage of their convictions.

I’m telling him.  I am a personal friend of Mayas’.  If it really is as easy as he thinks to know who we should and shouldn’t talk to, he could simply provide names.  But he won’t go on record by providing any list of names, because he knows its a million times more complicated than he let’s on.

He is this close to getting a message to Obama.  But he has nothing.  Nothing.

Sit tight.  The Republicans are building their case against Obama based on their perceptions.  They have no idea what they will be getting themselves into when they make their arguments in the general election, if Barack is lucky enough to win the nomination.

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 12:55 am

Give us names of who we can and can not talk to! 
Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 01:33 am

How naive and childish of you H....first, “you” give us the names of people....ah, let’s say, in China who say they support the U.S. but don’t or say they don’t support us but do… your hackneyed cliches and trite overused campaign slogans and ideas won’t work in the “real” world.

Your talking about [ what’s typically] classified State Department [&CIA] intel...which, if made public, would get those people murdered....that’s why “PRECONDITIONS” are always set and why Barak’s pulicly stated ridiculous intention to refuse to set prconditions is so dangerous-not only to our ,military personnel, but also to our non-military civilian population.


All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth. —Aristotle ...

Joel on February 27, 2008 at 03:13 am

Correction:  one former military guy who now works for Fox News is nervous about Obama.
correctio on February 26, 2008 at 06:37 pm

Don’t you ever read anything besides comic books and the back of cereal boxes?


All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth. —Aristotle ...

Joel on February 27, 2008 at 03:16 am

If you listen to Obama’s speeches, it is not the lack of substance but the quality of it that ought to worry Americans.

His victory speech after his latest primary win in Wisconsin was a case in point.

There was no shortage of proposals. He plans large increases in government spending on health and education.

He wants to tax the rich more to pay for it.

He is against companies using the opportunities of free markets to restructure their operations in the US.

He is vehemently protectionist. He continues to insist, despite the growing evidence that this left-wing nostrum would be lunacy, that the US must pull its troops out of Iraq with the utmost dispatch.

While he speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship (“We are not blue states or red states, but the United States” is a campaign meme), when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party.

If you think about it for a second, it’s not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson.

Though he talks with great eloquence about the future, he sounds for all the world like one of the long line of Democrats from George McGovern to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis, who became history by espousing policies and striking a rhetorical pose that was well out of the mainstream of American politics.


All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth. —Aristotle ...

Joel on February 27, 2008 at 03:34 am
Avatar for Socialist

If Likwid only want’s the deadly Muslims dead, why is he criticizing Obama’s statements that he want’s to go after the real terrorists in Pakistan?

This is almost too simple to explain. Obama has actually talked about going after the 9/11 terrorists, which is a hell of a lot more than Bush has done. Bush is a terrorist appeaser by allowing the 9/11 terrorists to go completely free. I personally think it is by design because I think Bush and the GOP are in partnership with Al-Qaida.

Liquid Shit is just throwing up his usual smoke and mirrors to divert attention to the dark truth about the failed piece of shit he most likely voted for (Bush).

Socialist on February 27, 2008 at 06:28 am

Liquid Shit is just throwing up his usual smoke and mirrors to divert attention to the dark truth about the failed piece of shit he most likely voted for (Bush).

Another Socialshit heard from…



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 07:01 am
Avatar for LLP

Oh look, a bunch of all-talk hawks sitting around posting excitedly about war on some internet forum.  Talked to a recruiter lately?  Don’t you guys want to win?

They will fight on the beaches, they will fight in their cars, they will fight on talk radio, on the blogs, they will never stop fighting!  Go Chickenhawks!!

LLP on February 27, 2008 at 07:05 am
Avatar for LLP

Talked to any actual Iranians lately?  Where do you get your news about Iran?  Talk radio?  I know young Iranians who immigrated to the US, word is the mullahs are extremely unpopular among the youth class.

Turn off the mind suck that is neo con media and talk radio and think for yourself, tool.

LLP on February 27, 2008 at 07:07 am
Avatar for LLP

(That’s in response to those who posted about not knowing who in Iran is the enemy).

LLP on February 27, 2008 at 07:09 am

Oh look, a bunch of all-talk hawks sitting around posting excitedly about war on some internet forum.

Another Socialshit heard from…



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 07:10 am

LLP (chickenchicken): Per von Clausewitz, war is merely the continuation of policy by other means: do the mind-numbed robots of the left suggest that only politicians should be able to set or criticize government policy?
(I can tell from your writing that you’ve already become a drug abuser so that you can criticize the war on drugs!)
Can one criticize slavery without being either slave or slave holder?
Can you LLBeanbrain, criticize chickenhawks without first being one and still be consistent with what passes for logic in what passes for your mind?
Ah! Perhaps it is that self loathing that brings you here! 
To be utterly consistent with your logic, you MUST BE a chickenhawk in order for you to bring up that (pathetic excuse) of an argument!

Go play in traffic.



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 07:26 am

LLP has no right to discuss military matters unless he has actually served.

Ken McCracken on February 27, 2008 at 07:42 am

Must be a teacher workday.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 27, 2008 at 08:03 am
Avatar for LLP

Don’t worry about me, I’m busy being a hippie wuss, remember?

But you treat your pro war stance as a statement of personal courage, and definitely deserve to be called out for what you are:  Chickenhawks COWARDS!

LLP on February 27, 2008 at 08:06 am
Avatar for Jack

LLP has no right to discuss military matters unless he has actually served.

And yet you reject the chickenhawk argument when it comes to conservatives.

As always, IOKIYAR.

Jack on February 27, 2008 at 08:08 am

This is almost too simple to explain. Obama has actually talked about going after the 9/11 terrorists, which is a hell of a lot more than Bush has done. Bush is a terrorist appeaser by allowing the 9/11 terrorists to go completely free. I personally think it is by design because I think Bush and the GOP are in partnership with Al-Qaida.

It will never happen under a left tard administration all you’re going to get is appeasement. Don’t think for a momment that Barrack Hussein Obama is going to go after Islamic terrorist. It is all a ruse and it sound good but the only thing I see him doing is redistributing wealth and making people dependant on government.


Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

goon on February 27, 2008 at 08:17 am

you treat your pro war stance as a statement of personal courage

Please quote so much as a single instance.

COWARDS!

PROJECTIONIST!



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 08:21 am

But you treat your pro war stance as a statement of personal courage,

BTW, You treat your ability to type as a statement of personal intelligence. It’s not.



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 08:23 am

And yet you reject the chickenhawk argument when it comes to conservatives.

Actually, Jack, I think you’ll find that there are quite a few conservatives here who HAVE served in the military… come in combat.  The point was that making the so-called “chickenhawk argument” is specious nonsense if the person making the argument is not prepared to live by his own argument in the first place.

Besides, the whole “chickenhawk argument” is little more than the incoherent babbling of adolescents too intellectually under-developed to make a cogent argument on the merits.  It’s the public policy equivalent of “My Dad is bigger than your Dad,” and people making so silly and gratuitous an argument deserve nothing but condemnation and contempt for their stupidity.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 27, 2008 at 08:31 am

LLP: I apologize if the discussion of real men (our volunteer armed forces) making sacrifices for the notion of honor, duty and country makes you uncomfortable with your own personal cowardice, inadequacy and general self loathing.

Your arguments projecting these qualities onto others have failed miserably (perhaps the two word autobiography of LLP?). I suggest you retreat to denial and further self absorption. Maybe you could try the Cartoon Network?



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 08:32 am
Avatar for LLP

You guys are obviously excited about war because you are extremely insecure about your own masculinity, that’s why you claim to be fighting the “war of ideas” and the “war at home.” You see yourselves as making some personal sacrifice (shades of Mitt’s sons) somehow comparable to the sacrifices made by real soldiers. 

You call the anti war movement wusses, cowards, and accuse them of wimping out, running away, and surrendering.  You obviously see yourselves as personally brave for not enbodying those traits.

I don’t consider the Chickenhawk argument worthless - it’s important to urge war supporters to enlist.  We obviously need a larger army if we’re going to win - the armed forces have admitted as much, they’ve already resorted to lowering standards for enlistment.  Even McCain has called upon young war supporters to make a personal sacrifice. 

Don’t you guys want to win?  Where’s the sacrifice?  Do you really think blogging in support of the war accomplishes anything useful?  If you’re not helping to win the war, you’re just as much a defeatist as anyone else.

LLP on February 27, 2008 at 09:07 am

Don’t you guys want to win?  Where’s the sacrifice?  Do you really think blogging in support of the war accomplishes anything useful?  If you’re not helping to win the war, you’re just as much a defeatist as anyone else.

You haven’t earned the right to discuss this, LLP, because you haven’t served.

Where is YOUR sacrifice, by the way?

Ken McCracken on February 27, 2008 at 09:10 am
Avatar for LLP

"You haven’t earned the right to discuss this, LLP, because you haven’t served.

Where is YOUR sacrifice, by the way?”

By your logic I’m already a hippie wuss and rooting for defeat, right?  So why would I need to serve?

But college Republicans are brave and want to win.  Why not enlist?  Don’t you guys want to kick some terrorist ass?

LLP on February 27, 2008 at 09:16 am

By your logic I’m already a hippie wuss and rooting for defeat, right?  So why would I need to serve?

Why does being a hippie and a wuss exempt you from anything?

You need to serve just like everyone else.

Ken McCracken on February 27, 2008 at 09:26 am

extremely insecure about your own masculinity

Projection again. Yours is the only “masculinity” (questionable as it is) that you know for certain.

You see yourselves as making some personal sacrifice

Another empty (headed) assertion with no basis in fact. Here, I’d tell you to blow your brains out, but you’d need a search party!

I don’t consider the Chickenhawk argument worthless

A clear sign that you either can’t read or haven’t been paying attention!

college Republicans?

Son, you weren’t even a stain in your Daddy’s pants when I went to college!

Do you really think blogging in support of the war accomplishes anything useful?

I dunno, dimwit. Do you really think blogging against the war accomplishes anything useful? If not, then why the hell are you wasting our time and Rob’s bandwidth? Sheesh! What an idiot!


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 09:55 am
Avatar for Hannitized

Hey, where did Likwid go?

Funny, he seemed so damned sure of himself earlier.  I guess when someone actually calls him out on his bullshit, he suddenly has a lot of work to do.

“We don’t need to seen any names.  These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.  You can go about your business.  Move along.”

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 10:04 am
Avatar for Hannitized

Your talking about [ what’s typically] classified State Department [&CIA] intel...which, if made public, would get those people murdered....

Ahh, more smoke and mirrors.  This reminds me of those guys who used to tell us about all those WMDs we knew we would find, because of that secret information we couldn’t talk about publicly.

Well then, if this is in fact the case, are there ANY people we can talk to in Iran?  Ore are they all “deadly Musliims”?

I am sure you are only speaking of Iraqis, right?  Because we had every Iraqi who is good and protected in our database, right?  What classification of intelligence was that anyway?  Black, secret, top secret, classified or unclassified?  Can you tell me again how much you really know?

Nonsense!  This is just more right-wing spin.  There is no way our intelligence could give us that many names. 

that’s why “PRECONDITIONS” are always set and why Barak’s pulicly stated ridiculous intention to refuse to set prconditions is so dangerous-not only to our ,military personnel, but also to our non-military civilian population.

I’m sorry, what was that?  You make it sound like you know what you are talking about, but in fact, you don’t.  So please stop pretending that you know what is and what is not dangerous to our military.

You know what “is” dangerous to our military?  Telling your enemy to “bring it on” when they threaten to attack you.  I am sure you had nothing but words of encouragement for your president at the time.  Right?

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 10:18 am

Hey, where did Likwid go?
Funny, he seemed so damned sure of himself earlier.  I guess when someone actually calls him out on his bullshit, he suddenly has a lot of work to do.

On behalf of those of us with actual lives, a break in the discussion does not constitute a “win” on your part.
If the temporary absence of a rebuttal makes you feel like you’re King of your Mom’s Basement, fine! Whatever it takes to get you through the day



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 10:25 am

There are many great differences between talking to the Soviet Union and to Islamic Militants: (1) There is no single leader or organization, versus a head of state. (2) With the Soviets we had mutually assured destruction and few Russians thrilled about blowing themselves up no matter what their leaders might say about the matter. (3) Islam teaches Muslims to lie and decieve their enemies (all the non-Muslim world), make treaties but have no obligation to ever keep them. (4) The leaders in the various Islamic militant groups are all murderers, terrorists, torturers and either directly or as a silent accomplices engaged in rapes. You are not talking about sane leaders just lusting after power as in the Soviet Union, but in Islam mentally deranged criminals.

I could go on and on, but the point is there is no comparison between most tyrants and Islamic tyrants, they cannot be reasoned with, as with Araft at the Clinton Peace Conference at Camp David, geting 98% of what he wanted and then turning it down, that is what Islam is all about. They don’t want help resolving minor conflicts or even major ones for that matter, they want the total destruction of Israel, death to all Jews not converting to Islam and the forced conversion or death of all non-Muslims on earth. They pursue these ends unto death, even deaths of their own people and therfore, to suggest we should be talking to them is ludicrous, it is a waste of breath and will acieve no good ends.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 27, 2008 at 10:47 am

There are many great differences between talking to the Soviet Union and to Islamic Militants:

Apparently the left doesn’t see a difference


Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

goon on February 27, 2008 at 11:19 am
Avatar for Hannitized

(1) There is no single leader or organization, versus a head of state.

Neiman.  Since we are talking about Iran here.  Where do you think Ahmadiniejad fits in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (help·info)[1] (born October 28, 1956)[2] is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He became president on August 6, 2005 after winning the 2005 presidential election by popular vote.[3] Before becoming president, he was the mayor of Tehran. He is the highest directly elected official in the country; however, according to Article 113[4] of Constitution of Iran, he has less total power than the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Iran and has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies.[4][5][6]

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 11:21 am
Avatar for Hannitized

WASHINGTON (AFP) — In an interview with the New York Times on Friday, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said he would hold direct talks with Iran if elected to the White House.

Iran has been a hot topic among Democratic and Republican candidates amid belligerent statements from President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney about possible repercussions if Tehran refuses to halt its nuclear program.

Washington has not had direct ties with Tehran since 1979.

Obama told the Times that if elected he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran, part of a broader policy aimed at stabilizing neighboring Iraq in order to withdraw US troops.

Somebody care to explain to me how Iran differs from the Soviet Union, again?

By the way, did anyone see the line Obama used to talk about AQ not being in Iraq until John McCain and George Bush brought them there?  Sound familiar to anyone?

I am telling you.  Sit tight.  The fight has just begun.

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 11:25 am
Avatar for Hannitized

(3) Islam teaches Muslims to lie and decieve their enemies (all the non-Muslim world), make treaties but have no obligation to ever keep them.

Be careful Nieman.  When you go about condemning your enemies, be sure that your house is clean before you do so.  Otherwise your words lack meaningful wisdom.

The US has a long history of making treaties and breaking them.  Don’t they?

The right has created an entire series of lies against the left and Muslims.  Do I really need to list all of them to make my point?  Or, do you agree that there are a log of people in our country who promote lies about our opponents?

I suggest that if you are going to level criticisms that are supposed to gain trust from those whom you disagree, you level those criticisms accurately and ensure you are not making us hypocritical in the process.

I for one am very sensitive about that.

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 11:40 am
Avatar for Hannitized

(2) With the Soviets we had mutually assured destruction and few Russians thrilled about blowing themselves up no matter what their leaders might say about the matter.

I fail to see how talking to a nation of people who were prepared to destroy most of the world is less of a threat than Iran, who does not have a single nuclear weapon, yet.

You have not demonstrated any substantial difference between Iran and the Soviet Union.

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 11:46 am

Hannitized:

Somebody care to explain to me how Iran differs from the Soviet Union, again?

1. Iran is a radical Islamic State, a theocracy of the worst order. 2. Iamabadhandjob is a religious zealot of the first order, he has called for the destruction of Israel and death to all Jews and he is doing this while whipping up hate for America because he feels anointed to prepare the world for the coming Mahdi, making the entire world Islamic. 3. Iamabadhandjob is a violent dictator that has supported terrorism and death all over the world not in the name of his nation, but Allah.

Be careful Nieman.  When you go about condemning your enemies, be sure that your house is clean before you do so.  Otherwise your words lack meaningful wisdom.

A. I don’t need you to tell me if anything I might say possesses wisdom, as I don’t believe you are qualified. B. I have studied Islam and I tell you that this is an article of faith, not the word of a nation being broken for various reasons, good or not; but this is the heart of Islam. C. I condemn Islam because it supports theft, rapes, torture and murder as articles of its faith, the core of its belief system.

I fail to see how talking to a nation of people who were prepared to destroy most of the world is less of a threat than Iran, who does not have a single nuclear weapon, yet.

The Soviets wanted to rule the world and destroy the West, not the world. We could make deals with the Soviet Union because for various reasons they needed to keep their word, not the least of which their economy was broken and they could not afford to constantly keep up with us militarily or economically. Iran conducts its business as a matter or militant, violent religious zealotry, bigotry and hate for all that is non-Muslim. Thus, they don’t care about their own lives or the lives of their own people, they are a threat because murder and death are at the heart of their culture.

If you cannot see the difference, it is because you choose not to see it and that is why we cannot trust liberals with our liberty. They do not understand the nature of threats, they are blind regarding enemy identification and they ignorantly pursue policies of appeasment and unilateral surrender.

But, thanks for playing our game little Hannitized!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 27, 2008 at 01:03 pm

Hello Neiman.
I love you.

Do you love me?


“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

realitybasedbob on February 27, 2008 at 01:14 pm

The US has a long history of making treaties and breaking them.  Don’t they?

Kinda like middle class tax cuts, Social Security “lockboxes”, “We will bring those responsible to justice.”, and what the meaning of “is” is?

All the more reason not to bother with the charade in the first place.

The threat of so-called “Mutually Assured Destruction” is meaningless when applied to those who regard their own death in the furtherance of the aims of their murderous ideology to be glorious event.

Which is also the reason it is so important to prevent those who adhere to such a barbarous faith from obtaining weapons of mass destruction to begin with.

Soviet communists were every bit as brutal and paranoid as today’s Islamists, but they were not nearly so eager to sacrifice themselves, and their women and children, to the glory of (muslim) conquest.  The waves of white-robed 10 and 12 year old boys sent out by the Iranians to “clear” minefields during the Iran-Iraq war is all that’s needed to make the distinction.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 27, 2008 at 01:33 pm
Avatar for dannyboy

These military leaders are worried that Obama would be clueless as commander-in-chief.

Well at least they’ve been getting used to that for the last 8 years.

dannyboy on February 27, 2008 at 01:56 pm

dhimmiboy! Short bus get back early?



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 02:25 pm
Avatar for dannyboy

Nah, I had a snow day today.  Luckily, your mother was around to suck my dick.

dannyboy on February 27, 2008 at 02:36 pm

Necrophiliac, huh?  That’s tough.  You’ll never know what you’re missing!

Still, that’s more for the rest of us.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 27, 2008 at 02:44 pm
Avatar for Hannitized

Iran is a radical Islamic State, a theocracy of the worst order.

And the USSR was once a Soviet Republic.  It was once termed the Evil Empire. Now, are they really so bad?

The Achaemenid’s achievements prior to the rise if Islamic Statehood demonstrates the possibilities of a greater generation for the future.  The ruling powers and president don’t speak for its people any more than Bush and the Senate always speak for me.  Things change, it’s leaders who help change then in either direction.  What has Bush done for you in Iran lately?

2. Iamabadhandjob is a religious zealot of the first order, he has called for the destruction of Israel and death to all Jews and he is doing this while whipping up hate for America

The Russians said similar things about America.

But the Soviets backed down in the 1962 Cuban crisis and Popper notes that “the Soviet Union lost the Cold War at that point, when there was an attempt to destroy America.  That was when the only remaining idea of the Marxist regime failed; it was the beginning of the decline that led to the general collapse”. [P.23] “But after 1962, they went on producing bombs, all the time knowing that they couldn’t use them.  That was the absolute intellectual zero point”.[P.28]

It is interesting that this whole concept of depicting the West as an evil, and the perspective to destroy the West, became such an integral part of the Soviet brainwash of its population.  Gorbachev noted this phenomena when he saw the need to make the Soviet people *normal*.  Here is what Popper observes of this last episode of collapse of Soviet Communism:

“Only with Gorbachev do we find a man who realizes that he has to change the fundamental assumption of the whole of Russian politics, that they are the people whose mission it is to destroy capitalism- that is, America.  Gorbachev has actually been several times to America and seen the reality there; he wants to show his understanding of a free people which is not aggressive towards Russia but hopes that Russia will come to her senses.  And Gorbachev made an important statement when he said ‘I want to make the people of the Soviet Union a normal people’ …You see, Gorbachev’s merit was to have understood that his people was not ‘normal’ whereas the American people was.  The attitude is really quite different in America; they do not all the time have this horrible game in their mind.”

http://www.ghandchi.com/88-Normal.htm

Iamabadhandjob is a violent dictator that has supported terrorism and death all over the world not in the name of his nation, but Allah.

Interesting conclusion.  And what does GWB do in the name of God and how many countries has he invaded militarily? 

“I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did, and then God would tell me, ‘George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,’ and I did.”

And “now again”, Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, “I feel God’s words coming to me: ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.’ And by God, I’m gonna do it.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 02:46 pm

Luckily, your mother was around to suck my dick.

Trick question! dhimmiboy doesn’t have a dick!



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 02:54 pm

And speaking of tricks, how’s your Mom, dhimmiboy?



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on February 27, 2008 at 02:55 pm
Avatar for dannyboy

Yeah, I donated it to the war effort.  Like the president says, we all need to sacrifice.  Oh, wait, he didn’t say that.  Shit!

You fuckers are so light in the ass, it’s laughable.

dannyboy on February 27, 2008 at 03:00 pm
Avatar for dannyboy

Wow, didya come up with that one all by yourself Proof?  Next time, I’m demanding writing credit.

dannyboy on February 27, 2008 at 03:03 pm
Avatar for Hannitized

A. I don’t need you to tell me if anything I might say possesses wisdom, as I don’t believe you are qualified.

I do.  In fact, I think that you over look a lot of hypocrisies and your view of the world is narrow-minded.  This doesn’t go to say that you are unintelligent, by any means.  I am simply stating that you are clearly not taking into consideration all of the facts before you make some of your statements.  You are either doing so because you refuse to see the facts or because you aren’t aware of them.

B. I have studied Islam and I tell you that this is an article of faith, not the word of a nation being broken for various reasons, good or not; but this is the heart of Islam. C. I condemn Islam because it supports theft, rapes, torture and murder as articles of its faith, the core of its belief system.

I have my concerns about how Islam is being interpreted and it’s religious extremists, but I think you neglect to acknowledge that Atheists say the same thing about our Bible supporting murder, and torture.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 “If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.”

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

We can go on like this for days Nieman.

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 03:05 pm
Avatar for Hannitized

Oh, I forgot to say that our bible also condones rape.  Sorry Nieman.

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 03:07 pm
Avatar for Hannitized

The Bible on Murder:

Exodus 32:27: Then he (Moses) said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about 3,000 of the people died.

The Bible on Religious tolerance:

Deuteronomy 13:6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.

The Bible on killing the unborn and women:

Hosea 13:16: “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”

Hannitized on February 27, 2008 at 03:55 pm

Hannitized:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12: This immodest action by the woman was done partly out of affection to her husband, to oblige his antagonist to let go his hold of him; and partly out of malice and revenge to him, to spoil him, and make him unfit for generation, and therefore she was to be severely punished. While she is sentenced to having her hand cut off, it is symbolic only, she is allowed to redeem her hand with payment, and the terminology was employed solely to speak to the serious nature of this matter to a people of little or no education and thus it required simple and severe language to make the point clear.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: While the translators employed the word rape, it was not this but consensual sex based his promises to her of marriage; and so the money was paid in place of the lost dowry and the man was obliged to marry the woman he promised to marry and defiled based on the promise.

Exodus 32:27

: They were ordered not to go into the tents of good men, but slay those on the street guilty of gross idolatry, polluting the special relationship between Israel and God.

I’ll stop here and add, no matter how many passages you offer, you are using the Old Covenant (contract) between God and Israel, which was set aside by the New Testament of Grace. Thus, under the Christian dispensation none of these things are applicable at all. As to the Old Testament I have neither the time nor is this the place to educate you on the Old Testament and replace your many errors with the true facts. You use the Old Testament, as do most atheists, because you falsely think these passages are exactly what they seem and can be used to compare Christianity with Islam. As to every matter you are in great error, having no real understanding of Scripture at all.

Nonetheless, Islam is full of commandments to kill non-believers and even bad Muslims, while you will not find any such commands in the New Testament. The moon god Allah, really Mohammed, orders the world to be converted to Islam by force and all those refusing to convert can be treated as animals and must be killed. In Christ, the appeal is only and always based upon love and in matter of fact, freewill means that God will recieve none that do not come to Him out