(no subject)
I cannot believe that today this n00b called Bush and McCain naive when it comes to foreign policy. Pot. Kettle. Black.
This silly snake-oil peddler clearly fails to understand that the foreign policy table is for big boys. The man believes that Iran is the key to stabilizing Iraq, and he is right to an extent, but is Iranian-backed stability in Iraq a good idea for the world to accept?
no it isn't; here's why. We withdraw from Iraq, thereby giving Iran exactly what they want. No sane person could rationalize this as some sort of victory for American, Western and Middle Eastern regional security. The last thing the world needs is for Iran to increase the length of its coastline closer to the Straits of Hormuz and to have its strike and recon aircraft capable of operating farther out into the Gulf.
Iran, via an Iraqi proxy, could threaten Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan with an overland invasion, they would be able to deploy ballistic missiles into Iraq--missiles that would then be capable of striking Italy and southern France. These missiles would also pose a threat to free access to the Suez Canal. The Balkans would also be in range and could Iran potentially portray itself as the "Defender of the Islamic Faith" in Europe? We must remember that Iran is lead by theologians; theologians don't view the world in the same way everyone else does--they want to bring about the end of the world to get the perpetual sex slaves and rivers of booze that Allah has promised the male faithful.
Obama displays his non-existent grasp of strategy in not seeing that Iran is a very real threat--as was Iraq--WMD or no WMD. The oil deposits beneath the countries of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran make regional stability very important--and paramount to keeping the global economy humming along and to maintain our current level of civilization in the West and Far East.
Unfortunately for him, Obama does not have a sufficient grasp of history and this makes his analogies fall flat. In the aftermath of WW2, the USSR was not such a massive threat. If it wasn't for American lend-lease aid, the Red Army would have been totally destroyed by the Wehrmacht and would never have been capable of mounting counter-offensives starting in Summer 1943--if the war would still have dragged-on that long without Soviet divisions being equipped with American trucks, fuel and even food. The Soviet Union's lifeline flowed from Iran and via Arctic Ocean convoys.
Additionally, the ever-paranoid Stalin was always reconsolidating his power and the USSR had a great deal of economic recovery to embark upon, since the Germans had gotten to within site of the spires of the Kremlin in 1941. But recovering from the war was only part of the problem Stalin faced, he also had to make sure that the USSR's recently-acquired satellite states would be brought into line and that the communist leadership in those countries would be loyal to him. Even recently liberated Russian citizens were imprisoned, tortured and what not due to the failure of the Red Army and Stalin to sufficiently defend the frontier during the opening days and weeks of the German onslaught. They had committed no crime; rather the innocent were being ruthlessly punished in Stalin's place, since it couldn't have been Stalin's fault for the Germans gobbling up such a large swath of territory in 1941, could it? He who killed 40,000 Red Army Officers beginning in 1937, thereby crippling any strategic or tactical initiative within the military and stressing Communist indoctrination over military training.
Does Obama not realize that the West is engaging in dialogue with Iran? There have been meetings held in Geneva, Security Council resolutions--so there is a dialogue. Has this made any progress? No.
Apparently Obama is naive enough to think that restoring full diplomatic relations with a nation is enough to get them to change their tunes and join him in drinking the kool-aid. We all know full well that the letter that FDR sent to Hitler got the Fuehrer to totally change his views--enough becoming philo-semetic--and at the Washington Sumitt in 1939, with Roosevelt officiating, married a charming Jewish woman, who had a wooden leg, was a former lesbian, had Roma (Gypsy) relatives, was a communist and, lastly, the product of a German father and Russian mother.
In reality, Roosevelt did send Hitler a letter, which Hitler used in a Reichstag speech as fodder for jokes.
We have also seen how thin-skinned this political neophyte is. He has put his wife out on the campaign trail, thereby making her words and comments part of his campaign; thusly making criticism of said comments before rallies and what not, fair game for commentary. This man has the gall to threaten people to "lay off his wife" and "watch out." As he talks about his "track record" and himself being totally fair-game. Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama, for telling the media and the public what we can and cannot deem fit to question you about.
That's right--he has no track-record to speak of unless you want to count other things that he has expressed his disapproval of: Wright, Ayers, Rezco, etc. All the thinks that show his shit-ass poor judgment, thinks that show him as the idealistic sap he is, apparantly isn't germaine to his candidacy. He wants to be judged on his character and judgment, but doesn't want either of those to be seriously scruitinized? In his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope (taken from one of the evil black Hitler's sermons), Obama writes how he is a "blank screen."
Who is this man? What has he truly done in his political "career"? Besides inspiring "hope" and bringing about "change" what does he want to do in terms of substantive policy? All politicians want to bring hope and change to their people whether you're Otto von Bismarck, George Washington, Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi-Minh, Mao Zedong or even Adolf Hitler. Change can either be positive or negative--a desire for "change" brings about war, more often than not.
For example, look at our own Civil War, for which one of the reasons it was waged was over the question of slavery and whether or not it would be allowed to expand into the new territories in the West. The Civil War was not waged to end slavery, as the Emancipation Proclamation makes clear. The proclamation only applied to slaves held in the Confederacy, not anywhere in the North. If modifying or ending the institution of slavery was a primary Union political objective, it would have been promulgated far earlier than 1863. In his private writings, Lincoln made it clear that whether slavery was abolished or not, as long as the Union had been preserved, he had done his job. Lincoln was a pragmatist first and foremost, something all politicians should emulate. While I am not too crazy about voting for John McCain, I will say he is at least pragmatic--not some ideologue who has some ideological playbook they're waiting to unleash.
It appears that the only exhibit Obama wants us to use for his sound judgment is his opposition to the war in Iraq supposedly from the get-go. If he was always against it, why would he have uttered that he agreed with what the president was doing regarding Iraq at any point in time? But luckily for the dems the liberal media would only go back to scour archives for comments made years ago in the case of conservatives. As far as network news goes, Tim Russert is the exception, he's always struck me as being very fair and one who doesn't throw his punches.
Who gives a damn what Obama thought about anything before he ran for federal office in 2004?
He has authored ~650 pieces of legislation in the Senate. How many have become law? 2. Both of them dealing with Africa; given the rants he listened to for 20 years from Jeramiah Wright--with his US of KK A and associated drivel--should that come as any shock? One of his bills--that would have mandated 7% of US GDP go to foreign aid--was defeated 99-0; he wasn't present at the time of the vote to cast the lone vote in support.
This guy seems to be all about exporting our capital to Third world shit-holes. What have they been doing with all the aid they've received over the last few decades from the developed world? How else did some of these African dictators get to have Swiss bank accounts with many zeroes in their balances?
This silly snake-oil peddler clearly fails to understand that the foreign policy table is for big boys. The man believes that Iran is the key to stabilizing Iraq, and he is right to an extent, but is Iranian-backed stability in Iraq a good idea for the world to accept?
no it isn't; here's why. We withdraw from Iraq, thereby giving Iran exactly what they want. No sane person could rationalize this as some sort of victory for American, Western and Middle Eastern regional security. The last thing the world needs is for Iran to increase the length of its coastline closer to the Straits of Hormuz and to have its strike and recon aircraft capable of operating farther out into the Gulf.
Iran, via an Iraqi proxy, could threaten Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan with an overland invasion, they would be able to deploy ballistic missiles into Iraq--missiles that would then be capable of striking Italy and southern France. These missiles would also pose a threat to free access to the Suez Canal. The Balkans would also be in range and could Iran potentially portray itself as the "Defender of the Islamic Faith" in Europe? We must remember that Iran is lead by theologians; theologians don't view the world in the same way everyone else does--they want to bring about the end of the world to get the perpetual sex slaves and rivers of booze that Allah has promised the male faithful.
Obama displays his non-existent grasp of strategy in not seeing that Iran is a very real threat--as was Iraq--WMD or no WMD. The oil deposits beneath the countries of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran make regional stability very important--and paramount to keeping the global economy humming along and to maintain our current level of civilization in the West and Far East.
Unfortunately for him, Obama does not have a sufficient grasp of history and this makes his analogies fall flat. In the aftermath of WW2, the USSR was not such a massive threat. If it wasn't for American lend-lease aid, the Red Army would have been totally destroyed by the Wehrmacht and would never have been capable of mounting counter-offensives starting in Summer 1943--if the war would still have dragged-on that long without Soviet divisions being equipped with American trucks, fuel and even food. The Soviet Union's lifeline flowed from Iran and via Arctic Ocean convoys.
Additionally, the ever-paranoid Stalin was always reconsolidating his power and the USSR had a great deal of economic recovery to embark upon, since the Germans had gotten to within site of the spires of the Kremlin in 1941. But recovering from the war was only part of the problem Stalin faced, he also had to make sure that the USSR's recently-acquired satellite states would be brought into line and that the communist leadership in those countries would be loyal to him. Even recently liberated Russian citizens were imprisoned, tortured and what not due to the failure of the Red Army and Stalin to sufficiently defend the frontier during the opening days and weeks of the German onslaught. They had committed no crime; rather the innocent were being ruthlessly punished in Stalin's place, since it couldn't have been Stalin's fault for the Germans gobbling up such a large swath of territory in 1941, could it? He who killed 40,000 Red Army Officers beginning in 1937, thereby crippling any strategic or tactical initiative within the military and stressing Communist indoctrination over military training.
Does Obama not realize that the West is engaging in dialogue with Iran? There have been meetings held in Geneva, Security Council resolutions--so there is a dialogue. Has this made any progress? No.
Apparently Obama is naive enough to think that restoring full diplomatic relations with a nation is enough to get them to change their tunes and join him in drinking the kool-aid. We all know full well that the letter that FDR sent to Hitler got the Fuehrer to totally change his views--enough becoming philo-semetic--and at the Washington Sumitt in 1939, with Roosevelt officiating, married a charming Jewish woman, who had a wooden leg, was a former lesbian, had Roma (Gypsy) relatives, was a communist and, lastly, the product of a German father and Russian mother.
In reality, Roosevelt did send Hitler a letter, which Hitler used in a Reichstag speech as fodder for jokes.
We have also seen how thin-skinned this political neophyte is. He has put his wife out on the campaign trail, thereby making her words and comments part of his campaign; thusly making criticism of said comments before rallies and what not, fair game for commentary. This man has the gall to threaten people to "lay off his wife" and "watch out." As he talks about his "track record" and himself being totally fair-game. Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama, for telling the media and the public what we can and cannot deem fit to question you about.
That's right--he has no track-record to speak of unless you want to count other things that he has expressed his disapproval of: Wright, Ayers, Rezco, etc. All the thinks that show his shit-ass poor judgment, thinks that show him as the idealistic sap he is, apparantly isn't germaine to his candidacy. He wants to be judged on his character and judgment, but doesn't want either of those to be seriously scruitinized? In his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope (taken from one of the evil black Hitler's sermons), Obama writes how he is a "blank screen."
Who is this man? What has he truly done in his political "career"? Besides inspiring "hope" and bringing about "change" what does he want to do in terms of substantive policy? All politicians want to bring hope and change to their people whether you're Otto von Bismarck, George Washington, Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi-Minh, Mao Zedong or even Adolf Hitler. Change can either be positive or negative--a desire for "change" brings about war, more often than not.
For example, look at our own Civil War, for which one of the reasons it was waged was over the question of slavery and whether or not it would be allowed to expand into the new territories in the West. The Civil War was not waged to end slavery, as the Emancipation Proclamation makes clear. The proclamation only applied to slaves held in the Confederacy, not anywhere in the North. If modifying or ending the institution of slavery was a primary Union political objective, it would have been promulgated far earlier than 1863. In his private writings, Lincoln made it clear that whether slavery was abolished or not, as long as the Union had been preserved, he had done his job. Lincoln was a pragmatist first and foremost, something all politicians should emulate. While I am not too crazy about voting for John McCain, I will say he is at least pragmatic--not some ideologue who has some ideological playbook they're waiting to unleash.
It appears that the only exhibit Obama wants us to use for his sound judgment is his opposition to the war in Iraq supposedly from the get-go. If he was always against it, why would he have uttered that he agreed with what the president was doing regarding Iraq at any point in time? But luckily for the dems the liberal media would only go back to scour archives for comments made years ago in the case of conservatives. As far as network news goes, Tim Russert is the exception, he's always struck me as being very fair and one who doesn't throw his punches.
Who gives a damn what Obama thought about anything before he ran for federal office in 2004?
He has authored ~650 pieces of legislation in the Senate. How many have become law? 2. Both of them dealing with Africa; given the rants he listened to for 20 years from Jeramiah Wright--with his US of KK A and associated drivel--should that come as any shock? One of his bills--that would have mandated 7% of US GDP go to foreign aid--was defeated 99-0; he wasn't present at the time of the vote to cast the lone vote in support.
This guy seems to be all about exporting our capital to Third world shit-holes. What have they been doing with all the aid they've received over the last few decades from the developed world? How else did some of these African dictators get to have Swiss bank accounts with many zeroes in their balances?