Thoughts?

LordMaximus on July 22, 2008 at 9:27 AM

If Bush has anymore fire in his gut he’ll certainly make a statement about it.

Obama is well over the line negotiating with Maliki. That’s to be expected from his Egomaniacalness.

I’m sorry but I’m still having trouble contemplating how a ‘tactic’ that violently murders thousands of people as ‘weak.’

terryannonline on July 22, 2008 at 12:25 PM

If you are trying to install a caliphate then yes it is a very weak tactic. Terrorists don’t make good imperial powers, they have enough trouble getting one state and keeping it for that matter. If you are just using a caliphate and religion as a rhetorical tool to gain power in the region is it less weak, but is still easy to combat, that is if you don’t become an imminent threat to everyone else in the region in what appears to be an attempt to combat it. By becoming an imminent threat to everyone in the region you also paralyze the ability, or at least hinder the ability of regional leaders to combat it, so naturally they need a larger power, but that in itself creates a downward spiral that usually will end in financial collapse of the “superpower” since it has to attempt to militarily and financially compensate for the consequences of its policy. Threats cannot be eliminated or mollified by creating more threats.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

Oh, well done, “Jailbones”. Well done!

Rasmussen today…Barry +0. Keep it up Barry!

Limerick on July 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Lim and all. Every articulate Limerick out there needs to write a letter to the editor of the local paper, outlining the parts of the Obama story that the MSM simply refuses to discuss, or discusses in forums that no one sees.

His communist mother and grandfather (h/t Dale), Ayers, Alinsky, Wright/Eminem, his voting record, abortion, Rezko, Judge Roberts, his crazy wife and the repeated self-references as a demi-God, his anti-military history, and his incredible deception during this campaign.

Let’s get to work.

I think he leaves himself open to the charge tonight that he’s meddling, that this is not his role, that he can be the critic, but he’s not the negotiator. We have a president who does that.

Gergen and Borger, liberals

My job is to think about national security as a whole, and to have to weigh and balance risks in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama, overseas, during a war

This is a very special kind of arrogance. Or is it treason?

Even people like Che, as nearsighted as he was, could see that terrorism is a very weak tactic because if it is combatted intelligently you can get the people to turn on them. Its all about divide and conquer, isolate the terrorist from his recruiting, make them look like the greater evil in their region, and this administration is hell bent on its opposite.

I’m sorry but I’m still having trouble contemplating how a ‘tactic’ that violently murders thousands of people as ‘weak.’

terryannonline on July 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM

The answer is rather obvious. I am talking about the word “terrorism”. Whether it is terrorism, information campaigns, or conventional armies they are all belligerent forces. To seperate assign moral ranking or to see it as anything other than a tactic is useless from a strategic standpoint, since all tactics used by an enemy or oneself is usually a reaction to the conditions on the ground and the realities of the moment, Hogan’s Heroes were terrorists because that is all they had to work with. My statement is that if Bin Laden had conventional armies the threat would actually be bigger, terrorism is a weak tactic, but not isolating the terrorist from his surroundings makes it easier to utilize that tactic. Even people like Che, as nearsighted as he was, could see that terrorism is a very weak tactic because if it is combatted intelligently you can get the people to turn on them. Its all about divide and conquer, isolate the terrorist from his recruiting, make them look like the greater evil in their region, and this administration is hell bent on its opposite.

The Sunnis were responsible for the success of the surge.

Terrorism is a tactic. You want to end terrorism give Bin Laden 500,000 troops, a navy, and an air force. Bin Laden is a belligerant enemy. There will never be “no threats”, having a foreign policy of throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks just creates more threats

Are you serious about giving bin Laden weapons? Are you being sarcastic?

terryannonline on July 22, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Terrorism is a tactic. You want to end terrorism give Bin Laden 500,000 troops, a navy, and an air force. Bin Laden is a belligerant enemy. There will never be “no threats”, having a foreign policy of throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks just creates more threats. Technology grows at an exponential rate, eventually world destruction or at least massive destruction will become very easy, communication is too easy. We are doing a great job at determining where those weapons of the future will be pointed. Getting into fights that aren’t your business will create more fights and many will be yours as a result. There is no utopia, frankly people who view themselves as “creative destruction”, deriving some kind of divine right from books that any schmuck can read and feeling superior to the many, and thinking that alone is enough to make the world in your image is downright utopian, and retarded at that. Society will never reach utopia, I merely aim to reverse its regression, especially in this country.

If there was no religion there would be less repression, but really in this country the new religion has been the state for quite some time, it establishes nomos for the herd.

He sold me on his qualifications. What Baracky needs to do now is hold a rifle to prove his military credentials and I’m voting for the guy.

Chutzpah sometimes pays, unless those with real authority challenge it!

The question many Republicans asked before Obama went to Iraq was “how is Obama going to go to Iraq and not acknowledge that the surge worked?” In fact, I think posts on this blog even called Obama’s Iraq trip a “trap” set by McCain.

So let’s see if McCain has what it takes to spring the trap and really expose Obama for being an opportunistic fraud.

It’s called divide and conquer, not empower your enemy by providing him with more sympathizers.

Yes, because al-Qaeda just loved before invaded we Iraq. There would be no terrorists.

I’m sure you also believe if there was no religion there would be no more wars.

Keep dreaming of utopia.

If you think being a superpower is a sham, then what do u suggest? Should we just let the whole world run amok and then one morning we wake up to see 3,000 of our citizens murdered we should just treat it like criminal case and not get the military involved because God forbid we might be seen as the ‘World’s Police’?

terryannonline on July 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Well first I wish they, the guardians, would talk to the public the way the talk to each other. You can read what the “intellectuals” write in rags like foreign affairs, with some philosophical background you can understand what mental midgets like Podhoretz are writing in Commentary. There is a disconnect between true intention and reality and it is really frustrating when you see the product of such nonsense. And frankly, to go from 9/11 to basically nihilism, the point where their BS can no longer be believed is a testament to their incompetence.

But no, regional forces can stabilize conflict, and at least we won’t be dying and going bankrupt. The idea that we had no footprint over in the Middle East is laughable and “police brutality” has created an environment where incompetent “intellectuals” like Bin Laden can be made to seem competent, at least by their successes. He is nothing but a Sharpton of the Middle East and our bad choices on foreign policy have given him a soapbox. We have gone after all his regional threats, from Iraq to Iran and have made him stronger. We could have declawed him before he ever got started if we wouldn’t have continued with this empire or world policing after Russia collapsed. Now we made so many enemies since that they can rise back to power by opposing us the same way we were able to justify many of our abuses during the Cold War. The legacy “intellectuals” constantly talked about the need to have a strong foreign threat, so they made that foreign threat more powerful and are trying to give it more allies. It’s called divide and conquer, not empower your enemy by providing him with more sympathizers.

Good point! I am concerned AND involved. :)

LevStrauss on July 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM

If you think being a superpower is a sham, then what do u suggest? Should we just let the whole world run amok and then one morning we wake up to see 3,000 of our citizens murdered we should just treat it like criminal case and not get the military involved because God forbid we might be seen as the ‘World’s Police’?

What office will Obama run for once he becomes POTUS?

He’s en route to Mt. Parnassus, and POTUS is merely the next step of his move-on.marx progression.

I guess I asked a good question because you just completely ignored my question.

terryannonline on July 22, 2008 at 10:30 AM

No I did answer your question, you just don’t like the answer. You want me to say yes or no with no explanation so you can add your own.

Also if you look back to my previous posts on this thread being the global superpower is somewhat of an illusion, other countries will gladly let you sacrifice your troops so they can save lives and money, but if you go too far they will call you out. They give you power because it is beneficial to them, once go too far they will work to your demise or at least take you down a bit, usually financially. Being the world’s policeman puts you at their mercy because foreign occupations are costly in a welfare state. They are also completely misplaying the rise of the third world, they’re idea of what “power” truly is, is a sham. That is why their philosophical influences were so careful and tedious, these legacy “intellectuals” have had all this knowledge layed at their doorstep and it has gone to their head.