Jack Kelly: Give Obama the potato test
-
Oakman wrote:
Bremer and Rumsfeld hurt this country as badly as if that was their purpose. It wasn't, of course, and I am sure they think of themselves as patriots, but their monumental ineptness did more damage to the U.S. that anyone could have thought possible.
But you cannot place the blame entirely on them. I've always opposed the very concept of small, "smart", limited wars, but the end of the cold war (the end of history) lulled our entire political system to believe we could draw down our military and do with less. That was clearly a mistake.
Oakman wrote:
Petreus is a miracle worker. That he has done so much with so little is amazing. I only hope his deputy is at least half as good. But, and 'tis a big but, our troops are being used up. Even though casualties have been reduced, they are still in harm's way 24/7. No-one, no matter how good a soldier, no matter how professional a soldier, can keep going day after day, month after month, tour after tour. Nor is my reading that Iraq is more stable. Just safer. There are still three factions, none with the upper hand, all believing they deserve to rule the other two, and all planning on getting sole power as soon as we leave, whether that's next month, next year, or three years from now. Joe Biden had the right of it awhile back - the only hope for what is left of Iraq is to create a three-state confederation - and the oil geography make that pretty impossible.
I don't disagree with that. I have never believed that you could take out one or two countries in that region and rebuild them into some kind of democratic republics willing to stand as models of American hegemony. The entire region, especially the power centers, must be dismantled for there to be any hope of that. On the other hand, however, we Americans have got to understand that the wars we are most likely to confront into the future are precisely the kind we face now in Iraq and Afganistan. There will be no more prestine noble causes where we are the clear cut and unequivocal good guys. If we cannot stand united as a people, even when the cause is less than certain and as our leadership struggles to evolve effective strategies for how to win them, we have very little chance of ever again being successful militarily regardless of how large our military is. Our troops are indeed sacrificing tremendously, but is it really more than they sacrificed in
Stan Shannon wrote:
But you cannot place the blame entirely on them.
Clinton & Bush Sr. certainly tried to balance their budgets on the back of the dismantling of the military to their everlasting shame. But Petraeus was commander of the 101st during the invasion in 2003. Had he gotten the top spot then instead of the second-raters being promoted because they passed loyalty tests, the war might have been concluded early in Bush's second term. Instead Rumsfeld and his minions screwed it up - badly and completely. This is an interesting read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801072_pf.html
Stan Shannon wrote:
lulled our entire political system to believe we could draw down our military and do with less
And when thre Army Chief of Staff testified before Congress that he felt 300,000 men were needed in Iraq back in 03, Paul Wolfowitz testified the next day that 100,000 men could do it. Wolfowitz has never served in the armed forces, by the way.
Stan Shannon wrote:
On the other hand, however, we Americans have got to understand that the wars we are most likely to confront into the future are precisely the kind we face now in Iraq and Afganistan
We won't learn that by providing millions in tax-cuts, trying to fill rediculously low recruiting targets with ever bigger bribes and lowering standards, and having two political parties who regard their ability to make law as a chance to give money to all their friends and supporters.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If we cannot stand united as a people, even when the cause is less than certain and as our leadership struggles to evolve effective strategies for how to win them, we have very little chance of ever again being successful militarily regardless of how large our military is.
As Buchanan points out in his new book (I'm just starting), we need to be careful that we do not imitate the egregious mistakes that Britain made at the beginning of the last century. As least with the advantage of hindsight, WWI was not inevitable and it lead, ultimately to Britain's status as a client state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Consider the frontier wars which a very small
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
As a nation we have obligated ourselves to remain on a permanent war time footing. I think a draft of some kind should be a component of that.
And I disagree. In the American system, the *lives* of the citizens do not belong to the State. And, if the society-as-a-whole *will not* defend itself, then no amount of governmental coersion will long hold off the inevitable end result.
Ilíon wrote:
In the American system, the *lives* of the citizens do not belong to the State.
Robert E. Lee would have disagreed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Obligated to whom? We? I don't think so. Bush has tried his hardest to suck us into a quagmire of permanent war, but we have no obligation to honor that legacy.
oilFactotum wrote:
Bush has tried his hardest to suck us into a quagmire of permanent war, but we have no obligation to honor that legacy.
I actually had Truman in mind. We have not gone completely off a war time military posture since the beginning of WWII.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Been to Europe lately?
Not lately, though I hear they wipe their butts with dollar bills these days. :^) Do you think America can do better, or is it OK because it doesn't suck as much as X?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Al Beback wrote:
Do you think America can do better
I hope so but so far it looks like we're headed in the same direction.
Al Beback wrote:
or is it OK because it doesn't suck as much as X?
No, it's not OK - we're just not quite as far down the path as Europe.... yet.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I want way less government in my life
Yes, stop controlling what I watch on TV, what I hear on the radio, how fast I can drive on the highways, what I can or can't do inside my car, what substances I can put into my body... I agree.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
way less social programs and less entitlement programs and therefore way less taxes taken from me.
Yeah, it's about the money. I hear you. Have you actually broken down how much of your money is used for those programs you want to eradicate, versus how much of it is wasted in wars, corporate handouts, or to pay our national debt? Here's a link I found: http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-07tax2.htm[^] What pieces of that pie would you be keeping if it were up to you?
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
Al Beback wrote:
What pieces of that pie would you be keeping if it were up to you?
Social Security & MediCare / MedicAid could be virtually eliminated. Let people save for their retirements. Let family and charity handle the exceptions - just like they did prior to these programs. Safety Net Programs would be totally gone. Defense and Security could be drastically reduced because if I was running the show ALL US soldiers would be pulled out of Europe & Asia. All foreign bases closed. Our UN membership would be terminated. Military would be used to close our southern border. In the other category - I'd increase money spent on education, transportation and research. After all these cuts (without cutting taxes) there would be plenty to operate in the black while paying off the debt. Once that's gone we lower taxes & start restoring Social Security in a vastly different way.
modified on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 10:29 AM
-
oilFactotum wrote:
What a laff!
Most folks don't laugh at the concept of men dying, Vietnamese or American. Glad you were so easily amused.
oilFactotum wrote:
What would we have 'won' and how would we have won it?
Do a quick study on the difference between North and South Korea.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Most folks don't laugh at the concept of men dying, Vietnamese or American. Glad you were so easily amused.
Welcome to the internet, you big baby. If you can't handle irreverence, may I suggest greeting shoppers at Wal*Mart? They take everything real seriously.
Oakman wrote:
Do a quick study on the difference between North and South Korea.
That's not an answer to his question. Exactly what would we have had to have done to win Vietnam? You have no idea, do you?
-
Oakman wrote:
Your post is a perfect example of why the left is blamed (and should be blamed) for losing a war that we were winning.
And more importantly, the leftists should be blamed for the multiple millions of human beings who were slaughtered directly because we, the US, listened to their lies.
Ilíon wrote:
And more importantly, the leftists should be blamed for the multiple millions of human beings who were slaughtered directly because we, the US, listened to their lies.
The five million Vietnamese that were killed because no one listened to the left, you mean.
-
We achieved victory by every meaningful military measure. We were not defeated militarily but politically thanks to people with attitudes such as your own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We achieved victory by every meaningful military measure.
Yet somehow we lost? Because of political pressure? Politics 3,000 miles away made killing 5 million people a waste of time?
Stan Shannon wrote:
We were not defeated militarily but politically thanks to people with attitudes such as your own.
I suggest you watch Fog of War, a documentary about Bob McNamara. He has a different take on the war than you do, and you're wrong.
-
As a nation we have obligated ourselves to remain on a permanent war time footing. I think a draft of some kind should be a component of that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As a nation we have obligated ourselves to remain on a permanent war time footing
Says you. Shove your war up your ass.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
and no one mentioned either party, you assumed I meant something else entirely that no one mentioned
Except the thread is about Obama [see his name in the title?], who is a Democrat and was not a leftist protester...
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
When we bail you out of Iraq
Bail who out? I've never been to Iraq and I'm not too pleased the US is there right now.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
will you repeat the mistake of blaming us for "losing"
Show me where I repeated anything even close to that??!!
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Except the thread is about Obama [see his name in the title?], who is a Democrat and was not a leftist protester...
Just admit that you conflated leftists with Democrats and slink away, no one will remember in a week or so anyway.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Except the thread is about Obama [see his name in the title?], who is a Democrat and was not a leftist protester...
Just admit that you conflated leftists with Democrats and slink away, no one will remember in a week or so anyway.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Ha ha, get your history straight, Kennedy did not escalate Vietnam
Are so you afraid to out-and-out lie that you don't have the balls to say what you really want to: That JFK lived until 1965???????? Surreal, you are the second person on the internet that blamed Zombie JFK for escalating Vietnam!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :-D :-D :) :) :( :( :sigh: :sigh: :(( :(( :(( :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
-
Well, of course, I have no love for lefty politics. I hope they'll see the light some day.. :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
So you hope for change? Vote Obama!
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
I think he's full of snake oil, as are all the candidates in this election.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
As a nation we have obligated ourselves to remain on a permanent war time footing
Says you. Shove your war up your ass.
I was not referring to the current conflict, but to our entire history since WWII. For any practical purpose, we have been at war since December 7, 1941.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Are so you afraid to out-and-out lie that you don't have the balls to say what you really want to: That JFK lived until 1965???????? Surreal, you are the second person on the internet that blamed Zombie JFK for escalating Vietnam!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :-D :-D :) :) :( :( :sigh: :sigh: :(( :(( :(( :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Are so you afraid to out-and-out lie that you don't have the balls to say what you really want to:
Let's check the facts! JFK took office in Jan 1961 and was killed in Nov 1963, he is responsible for the troop increases for the majority of 1961, all of 1962 & 1963 and probably some of 1964 (since these things are ordered many months before deployment). 1961 saw a 356% increase over 1960 1962 saw a 352% increase over 1961 1963 saw a 144% increase over 1962 1964 saw a 143% increase over 1963 Over the 15 year period (1959 - 1973), only 2 years (1965 & 1966) saw greater % increases. Despite the objections of Lodge and McNamara...
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Surreal, you are the second person on the internet that blamed Zombie JFK for escalating Vietnam!!
Sadly you're not the "first person on the internet" who can't do math.
-
I think he's full of snake oil, as are all the candidates in this election.
He's a politician - he has to be full of something - Hot air Bullshit Snake Oil Pick one and vote.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Oakman wrote:
Most folks don't laugh at the concept of men dying, Vietnamese or American. Glad you were so easily amused.
Welcome to the internet, you big baby. If you can't handle irreverence, may I suggest greeting shoppers at Wal*Mart? They take everything real seriously.
Oakman wrote:
Do a quick study on the difference between North and South Korea.
That's not an answer to his question. Exactly what would we have had to have done to win Vietnam? You have no idea, do you?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Welcome to the internet, you big baby
Oh really? You wouldn't kid me now would you? People can get rough on the Internet and you think I need to know this?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
That's not an answer to his question. Exactly what would we have had to have done to win Vietnam? You have no idea, do you?
When it learns enough history to realise that JFK started the buildup in Vietnam, then it can come back and ask me questions. If I am in a mood to answer and if it asks very, very nicely, then I may answer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Are so you afraid to out-and-out lie that you don't have the balls to say what you really want to:
Let's check the facts! JFK took office in Jan 1961 and was killed in Nov 1963, he is responsible for the troop increases for the majority of 1961, all of 1962 & 1963 and probably some of 1964 (since these things are ordered many months before deployment). 1961 saw a 356% increase over 1960 1962 saw a 352% increase over 1961 1963 saw a 144% increase over 1962 1964 saw a 143% increase over 1963 Over the 15 year period (1959 - 1973), only 2 years (1965 & 1966) saw greater % increases. Despite the objections of Lodge and McNamara...
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Surreal, you are the second person on the internet that blamed Zombie JFK for escalating Vietnam!!
Sadly you're not the "first person on the internet" who can't do math.
HA HA HA Dude you are seriously embarassing yourself! You have to one-vote my posts because you are not getting away with your deceptions. For those of you reading, here is the data (edited for brevity):
1962 11300 JFK
1963 16300 JFK
1964 23300 JFK/LBJ
1965 184300 LBJ
1966 385300 LBJ
1967 485600 LBJWhen Kennedy was killed, there were less than 20,000 US troops in Vietnam. By 1967, LBJ's administration, there were nearly half a million. Now who again is responsible for escalating Vietnam? Zombie Kennedy implemented the draft? Once again, slink away in shame, you lying sack of shit. Don't give me that % increase trickery. If this weren't such a hilariously hamfisted and incompetent lie, I might actually be angry, but instead I'm just amused that you tried, and then tried to defend it! Don't you know to quit when you're ahead? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The left, through decades of grassroots protest,
Who told you that? Your 4F history teacher? Name me the decades (that's 20 years at a minimum, right?)
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
American left (of which I am proudly a part) was right all along,
Right about what? Right that too many white boys' asses were going to get shot off if they got drafted?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
We either get blamed for "losing"
Quick History Test (Or lesson if you use Google) The Tet Offensive was a resounding victory for A. The VC; B. The ARVN; C. The NVA; D. The US Armed Forces. Edit added "D." which I accidently deleteted just before posting
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Name me the decades (that's 20 years at a minimum, right?)
The 1960s and 1970s. :confused:
Oakman wrote:
Right about what?
That the war was a losing proposition, unjust, and that, by association, you are a loser!
Oakman wrote:
Quick History Test
Quick history test: what does it feel like to be partly responsible for the US losing the first war since 1812? Of course you blame the hippies, you don't want to accept responsibility for your personal contribution to America's shame. Thanks a lot!