Comments on: On budgeting and asymmetrical threats

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Iranians expanding the Photoshop Gap

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Iranians expanding the Photoshop Gap — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:27:00 +0000

[...] has discovered why the Iranians spend a miniscule amount of money on national defense, as Barack Obama once claimed during the presidential campaign. Instead of building actual systems, they just copy photos of [...]

By: Ed Driscoll » Advantage: Dean Barnett

Ed Driscoll » Advantage: Dean Barnett — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:40:54 +0000

[...] terribly wrong. Most of the fumbles on the campaign trail — such as Iran being a “tiny” and therefore no threat, America not being “what it once was”, came when Obama had to go off script. Once, his [...]

By: Pompt Me Please | Radio Vice Online

Pompt Me Please | Radio Vice Online — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:33:28 +0000

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Obama can’t break the teleprompter habit, either

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:11:00 +0000

[...] Most of the fumbles on the campaign trail — such as Iran being a “tiny” and therefore no threat, America not being “what it once was”, came when Obama had to go off script. Once, [...]

By: Fritz J.

Fritz J. — Wed, 21 May 2008 13:30:18 +0000

Ed, since I’m in the mood to pick nits, you wrote the following.

For all of the trillions spent by both the Soviets and the Americans during the forty-plus years of the Cold War, not one civilian death resulted from an attack by either side.

That ignores Korean Airlines flights 007 and 902 which totaled 271 dead between them.

By: Send_Me

Send_Me — Wed, 21 May 2008 01:12:56 +0000

I hate the term “asymmetric warfare.” It’s nothing more than a “sexy” word used by conventional thinking people to describe a type of war that is thought different, yet really is not. All war is asymmetrical. Unless one wishes to lose, you have to consider the terrain (in terms of people, organizations, and the physical), composition and disposition of the enemy, time available, and perform a cost-benefit analysis of the target itself in terms of the accessibility of the target, how easily the enemy can recover, and the physical and psychological impact of an operation. These considerations, as are OCOKA, METT-TC, ASCOPE, and the principles of war, are all used during so-called “conventional” and “unconventional” warfare. As Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the sun.” You measure up your opponent then shoot for the weak points however you can.
It’s obvious that Obama sees warfare in terms of arithmetic, rather than an art and science. It’s ironic that this discussion revolves around Iran and the West. Leonidas had far fewer troops, whom the Iranian King, Xerxes, figured he could easily destroy with his 150,000-250,000 troops. History tells us the Persians won a Pyhrric victory. War is not that simple when you consider things such as, in the case of Thermopylae, terrain and the training of the enemy. For a more modern example, look at how the Afghans, with clandestine American aid, defeated a better trained, better equipped Soviet Army. Why? Better use of terrain, greater aid of the population in terms of logistics and intelligence, etc. How about Operation Restore Hope? Though we killed far more than they did, we left without victory. Why? How? It’s obvious Obama does not understand such things.
It’s amazing that a prospective leader of the free world would not understand such basic concepts of warfare.

By: onlineanalyst

onlineanalyst — Tue, 20 May 2008 23:52:45 +0000

The key words that the Dems use, regardless of the issue, are “Bush failed policy”. Thus, any Google reference bringing that incantation to the fore is supposed to be interpreted as fact.

A winning strategy is to turn the phrase back on the Dems and on Obama in particular; ie., “Obama’s failed policy” based on faulty historical knowledge, flawed understanding of economics, cluelessness on defense and intelligence matters, etc. Then follow through with the details of what makes his “policy” — whatever it is from day to day– flawed and dangerous.

Obama lies with statistics and bamboozles his base.

By: onlineanalyst

onlineanalyst — Tue, 20 May 2008 23:35:12 +0000

Obama has perfected the art of “just words” spin.

By: jgapinoy

jgapinoy — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:57:33 +0000

I’ll bet BO’s “potential common interests” with Iran are many.

By: techno_barbarian

techno_barbarian — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:46:53 +0000

If someone’s covered this already, I apologize. Haven’t read the thread yet.

I’m pissed.

I saw obambi on FNC a little while ago and he kept repeating that it has been Bush’s failed policies in the last 8 years that is directly responsible for iran getting stronger.

I wonder why no one is hammering this freshman idiot on the fact that the EU3 tried negotiations with iran for 3 friggin’ years, (you know, Bush changed his diplomacy stance and encouraged our allies to step up in a multilateral fashion to address the situation… something lefties were screaming about because of our ‘unilateral’ decision to go to war with saddam), with the only result being iran getting even more defiant and closer to having a nuclear weapon?

Does obambi actually believe that he’s going to make more progress than the EU3?

And the things he says he’ll do… They’re exactly the same thing as we’ve been doing all along, even though he insists his ’strategy’ is something new. It’s maddening.

This guy is dangerously naive. He must be defeated in November. He will be a complete disaster for the U.S. and the already shakey safety and security of the entire world.

By: philwynk

philwynk — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:33:10 +0000

Hinderaker at Power Line asked the truly relevant question yesterday:

Can someone explain why it is, exactly, that Barack Obama is not a laughingstock?

I mean, seriously, this wasn’t just a misstatement, he actually spent a couple of minutes explaining his reasoning, and his reasoning gave us astonishingly clear data proving that Obama does not understand history AT ALL. His head is completely empty. He’s less perceptive than the guys I hung out with in college. He knows NOTHING.

By: maverick muse

maverick muse — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:20:28 +0000

Norm from Tucson called into the Limbaugh show and made the perfect point: Obama does not lead. Obama is not a leader. Obama is led by those around him.

It’s true. Obama is completely malleable. He is Michelle’s Pillsbury Dough Boy.

Barker (circus) Barack
Gumby (you only thought I said Hussein)
Obama(choose me and like magic I’ll make YOU change)

By: EJDolbow

EJDolbow — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:18:21 +0000

He is going to cut Billions of dollars spent defending this country and spend TRILLIONS more giving money to fat and lazy americans who won’t do for themselves.

At that rate America should be ripe for invasion in a few short years.

By: Chakra Hammer

Chakra Hammer — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:16:57 +0000

btw what was Timothy McVeigh’s budget? Or Ted Bundy’s? Much less than the state, federal and local law enforcement agencies.

infidel65 on May 20, 2008 at 4:26 PM

What was William Ayres budget?

By: Chakra Hammer

Chakra Hammer — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:15:50 +0000

Obama does not understand the threat of a terrorist state handing off WMD’s to terrorists for the use of attacking us..(That would absolve Iran from blame)

He isn’t fit to be Commander-in-Chief, at this time.

By: EJDolbow

EJDolbow — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:15:02 +0000

This man must work for the enemies of the US.

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/video-barack-obamas-scary-national-defense-policy/

By: EJDolbow

EJDolbow — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:13:17 +0000

where is the 60 second youtube of Barack’s commercial bragging about the severity of cuts he will make in defense spending??

I haven’t seen that since last year.

By: infidel65

infidel65 — Tue, 20 May 2008 20:26:09 +0000

Our enemies are tiny compared to us, says Obama. There’s no need to worry. And yet he and his fellow Libs were quick to declare our defeat in Iraq, despite our overwhelming military budget.
This guy is way out of his depth.

btw what was Timothy McVeigh’s budget? Or Ted Bundy’s? Much less than the state, federal and local law enforcement agencies.

By: AverageJoe

AverageJoe — Tue, 20 May 2008 20:22:23 +0000

Hey, did Obama call Iran such a “tiny” country? Wow, what guts!! I dont think Bush or McCain would have the nerve to call Ahmadinejad’s homeland “tiny”. Obama threw down the gauntlet. He showed them who’s boss. What’s next…. “cute”, “itty bitty”? Obama is such a hawk!!

[End Sarc.]

By: Constitutionally Right

Constitutionally Right — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:56:35 +0000

Obama And The Two Irans…

John Edwards based his Presidential run on the “Two Americas” theme, arguing that there was one America for the rich and another America for the poor. After witnessing the failure of the “Two Americas” platform, Barack Obama ha…

By: geminicontender

geminicontender — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:55:00 +0000

Unfortunately, what this truly shows is how ‘ignorant’ people are (Liberals, of course). Ignorance is our most expensive commodity and it appears that we spend a lot on it just like Congress. Liberalism sucks to the max.

By: Seixon

Seixon — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:51:40 +0000

For all of the trillions spent by both the Soviets and the Americans during the forty-plus years of the Cold War, not one civilian death resulted from an attack by either side.

Hmmm. You forgot JFK… ;)

By: Logic

Logic — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:42:37 +0000

Hmmm…. I can’t help but wonder which candidate Iran wants to see become the next President.

By: Maquis

Maquis — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:38:09 +0000

It’s their aspirations, stupid!

By: Nosferightu

Nosferightu — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:13:08 +0000

Replacing “blinders” with “a halo” would improve the accuracy of that statement as it applies to Obama.

scatbug on May 20, 2008 at 1:34 PM

He wears his halo low, around his eyes. He needs to lower it a little more the cover his mouth.