PDA

View Full Version : OBAMA TO DISARM AMERICA???


GMONEY
08-26-2008, 8:07 AM
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/obama-plans-to-disarm-america/

I think this video will get pulled someone please copy it...

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/06/08/obama-wants-to-protect-america/

aplinker
08-26-2008, 8:20 AM
too late

tankerman
08-26-2008, 8:22 AM
Yep, Obama is an idiot.

His goal is to shrink our military so we will be forced [by force] to be part of the "Global Community", which he neglected to say is his goal. The moron does not realize that China is a threat and is increasing spending on their military or that terrorist supporting countries will continue to try and build nukes.

Forget about the fact that much of our private sector/consumer technological advances come out of defense research.

Obama's goal is to castrate this country in order to force compliance with his gobal view.

Narcissistic personality disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder),

nobs11
08-26-2008, 8:48 AM
His goal is to shrink our military so we will be forced [by force] to be part of the "Global Community", which he neglected to say is his goal. The moron does not realize that China is a threat and is increasing spending on their military or that terrorist supporting countries will continue to try and build nukes.

Forget about the fact that much of our private sector/consumer technological advances come out of defense research.


I do not believe that there will be an all out war with China. They are smarter than we are. The "war with China" is a war for market domination and economic control. They are already succeeding at that. The US economy is down the drain. I entirely support reducing the military and the defense industry and fixing the economy. While we sit here and thump our chests about how big and cool our military is, they are laughing at our current Iraq predicament and doing whatever is necessary to achieve global market domination.

The government has been consistently cutting research budgets for top research institutions that depend on the government for funding. Although there is applicative research that comes from some defense research, key research in fundamental sciences has been ignored. The Bush administration has been extremely harmful for research.

What the current bunch of neo-cons have been doing for the past many years is increasing defense spending to feed their own interests and the interests of their buddies who hold controlling interests in defense firms. The dollar is now worthless and the national debt is unbelievable.

I am a libertarian and for small government. That is NOT what the current bunch of "Republicans" has accomplished.

Knight
08-26-2008, 8:50 AM
Well said, nobs. The world isn't about who has the biggest stick any more.

sorensen440
08-26-2008, 8:53 AM
what a moroon
lets stop advancing our military and let the other guys catch up...

Gator Monroe
08-26-2008, 8:58 AM
He also wants to disarm the american public ...

tankerman
08-26-2008, 9:02 AM
Then you should have no problem giving up your guns.

Well said, nobs. The world isn't about who has the biggest stick any more.

FYI, there is a big difference between "defense" and "offense". The two of you seem to advocate giving up our country's defensive capabilities, which is what Obama said with regards to our missile defense system. He wants to reduce military research spending as well, must be so he can fund his global war on poverty and send our/my money to thrid countries with politicians more corrupt than our's.

And for needing a big stick, why not ask Afganistan what their country used to be like before the Taliban took over.

Oh well, I guess if we ever had any internal issues of our own we could just use UN Peace Keepers. Wouldn't you agree?

hawk1
08-26-2008, 9:25 AM
I do not believe that there will be an all out war with China. They are smarter than we are. The "war with China" is a war for market domination and economic control. They are already succeeding at that. The US economy is down the drain. I entirely support reducing the military and the defense industry and fixing the economy. While we sit here and thump our chests about how big and cool our military is, they are laughing at our current Iraq predicament and doing whatever is necessary to achieve global market domination.

The government has been consistently cutting research budgets for top research institutions that depend on the government for funding. Although there is applicative research that comes from some defense research, key research in fundamental sciences has been ignored. The Bush administration has been extremely harmful for research.

What the current bunch of neo-cons have been doing for the past many years is increasing defense spending to feed their own interests and the interests of their buddies who hold controlling interests in defense firms. The dollar is now worthless and the national debt is unbelievable.

I am a libertarian and for small government. That is NOT what the current bunch of "Republicans" has accomplished.

Hey Mr. Libertarian, how do you exactly justify the government funding of research? That doesn't really fit with a "true" libertarian thats for small government...
Your post reads like a bunch of catch phrases. Another, "it's Bush's fault" mentality. Who you guys going to blame next?...:rolleyes:

CCWFacts
08-26-2008, 9:58 AM
Obama has made it clear he wants to increase the size of our military.

wamphyri13
08-26-2008, 10:02 AM
Correct me if wrong, but...
During the Reagan and Bush administration, we had a huge military force and no one dared f**k with the US. Clinton administration..downsized military and opened the doors for terrorist acts. (1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, American embassy's) All leading up to 09/11/01. Bush may not have been the best President, but look what he had to face to start it off.

Obama is a socialist. While communism and socialism have some ideas that are in theory great and wonderful and benificial to all, you just can't leave your front door open in a high crime neighborhood. This isn't Star Trek where you have a near perfect planetwide alliance. The best defense is still a good offense. I may not be able to buy more guns if the majority of this country is insane enough to put him into office, but I'm keeping the ones I already have. Period.

Gator Monroe
08-26-2008, 10:02 AM
Obama has made it clear he wants to increase the size of our military.

Just like bush was for Small Government ?:)

RomanDad
08-26-2008, 10:17 AM
Obama has made it clear he wants to increase the size of our military.

Only one way to do that.....


THE DRAFT.

berto
08-26-2008, 10:22 AM
Correct me if wrong, but...
During the Reagan and Bush administration, we had a huge military force and no one dared f**k with the US. Clinton administration..downsized military and opened the doors for terrorist acts. (1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, American embassy's) All leading up to 09/11/01. Bush may not have been the best President, but look what he had to face to start it off.

Iran, Libya, and their proxies did dare to f**k with the US and its interests during the Reagan/Bush years and largely got away with it.

nobs11
08-26-2008, 10:28 AM
Hey Mr. Libertarian, how do you exactly justify the government funding of research? That doesn't really fit with a "true" libertarian thats for small government...
Your post reads like a bunch of catch phrases. Another, "it's Bush's fault" mentality.


I never said I believe in pure libertarianism. Corporations generally think short term. Fundamental research so far has been funded mostly by the government since it is for long term common good. Free market economics only work in a relatively free market. If corporations take up the slack, I'm all for it.

Who you guys going to blame next?...:rolleyes:

You, if you voted for Bush and keep supporting neo-cons.

CCWFacts
08-26-2008, 10:53 AM
Only one way to do that.....

THE DRAFT.

That's the implication, yes.

The part about increasing the size of the military is right there on his website:

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/

He wants an additional 92,000 troops, which could only mean, THE DRAFT, as you say.

.454
08-26-2008, 10:56 AM
Obama has made it clear he wants to increase the size of our military.

Then he is clearly lying in the video. Just click and watch.

Sorry pal, you can't have it both ways.

;)

dixieD
08-26-2008, 10:58 AM
I was too late to view. What did they show? Are the available elsewhere?

lioneaglegriffin
08-26-2008, 11:05 AM
Only one way to do that.....


THE DRAFT.

yay I always wanted to be drafted let me get me selective service card!! ;)

Gator Monroe
08-26-2008, 11:08 AM
Then he is clearly lying in the video. Just click and watch.

Sorry pal, you can't have it both ways.

;)

dITTO ! (The Liberal posters here spin things like a dreidel)

Big O
08-26-2008, 11:44 AM
Correct me if wrong, but...
During the Reagan and Bush administration, we had a huge military force and no one dared f**k with the US. Clinton administration..downsized military and opened the doors for terrorist acts. (1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, American embassy's) All leading up to 09/11/01. Bush may not have been the best President, but look what he had to face to start it off.

Small problem with your claim. The first WTC attack took place on Feb. 26, 1993, a month after Clinton was sworn into office. Clearly the planning took place on Bush #1's watch. I'm not a Clinton fan or supporter in any way, but I do want to point out that your claim may not be entirely true.

Also, don't forget the first large scale Al Qaeda attack on the U.S. The Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in October, 1983.

CowboyShooter
08-26-2008, 12:19 PM
"I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBM's off of hair trigger alerts"


yeah, good luck with THAT negotiation comrade. :eek:

hooookup
08-26-2008, 12:34 PM
I am all for peace through superior firepower, but I just can't align myself with McCain. Voting for Obama is out of the question. I refuse to support another egotistical maniac in the White House. I'm voting for Bill Barr of the Libertarian party. He has no chance of winning but I want my voice to be heard. This country needs a 3rd party option. Both the Democrats and Republicans are failing us.

javalos
08-26-2008, 1:31 PM
Lets not forget Putin's Russia move towards a Soviet era Cold War

katphood
08-26-2008, 2:11 PM
You know, the US was reluctant to get involved in both WWI and II. Why? Because we didn't want to be embroiled in all those idiot's problems. Look where we are now?

For the record, Obama has been saying draw down in Iraq (which the Iraqi's now want as well) and build up in Afghanistan and really go for Bin Laden.

We should have done that in the first place: a blazing fast all out, no holds barred effort to take those 'tards out.

Instead, the neocons and big oil found a way to do something they wanted since '91, go after Iraq's oil.

Why not have a self-sufficient US, where we don't need foreign (or even our own), where we fix our own problems at home, and never get up to our gonads in someone else's clusterf***?

wamphyri13
08-26-2008, 2:23 PM
Iran, Libya, and their proxies did dare to f**k with the US and its interests during the Reagan/Bush years and largely got away with it.

I should have clarified my statement. (heat of the moment typing)
Yes, Iran, Libya and others attacked our interests. But nothing was ever even thought of home soil. Battles small and large are constantly going on, but not one them even considered an attempt on the CONUS. We kept 'em all at bay with our forces abroad. And also remember, when Libya did screw with us, Reagan took care of it without further ado.

wamphyri13
08-26-2008, 2:32 PM
Small problem with your claim. The first WTC attack took place on Feb. 26, 1993, a month after Clinton was sworn into office. Clearly the planning took place on Bush #1's watch. I'm not a Clinton fan or supporter in any way, but I do want to point out that your claim may not be entirely true.

Also, don't forget the first large scale Al Qaeda attack on the U.S. The Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in October, 1983.

Well, I'll admit I probably don't have all my ducks in a row on the info and thanks for pointing it out. Again, heat of the moment. Can you remind of the first large scale Al Qaeda attack you are referring to? In another post I just made, I clarified what I should have said in the first place. Sure, there has always been skirmishes against the US, but always abroad. Now you've corrected me on the first WTC bombing. And maybe I went off half cocked, but it seems to me, when we had a massive military might, we were safer. After Clinton downsized the military, we had seemed to become more vulnerable. Maybe it's my perception, but we are becoming a weak nation in the eyes of the world. I agree with peace through superior firepower.

Edit : disregard the reminder. I just reread the quote and realized your last sentence was one sentence. This also supports my statement about home vs. abroad.

fullrearview
08-26-2008, 3:01 PM
I am all for peace through superior firepower, but I just can't align myself with McCain. Voting for Obama is out of the question. I refuse to support another egotistical maniac in the White House. I'm voting for Bill Barr of the Libertarian party. He has no chance of winning but I want my voice to be heard. This country needs a 3rd party option. Both the Democrats and Republicans are failing us.

isn't that the truth!!

in the words of stifler...... they both suck donkey d!@& !!!!!!!

IllTemperedCur
08-26-2008, 4:27 PM
Also, don't forget the first large scale Al Qaeda attack on the U.S. The Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in October, 1983.

That was Hezbollah in Beirut, AL Qaeda didn't exist in '83, being founded somewhere in the 1988-1990 time frame.

alex00
08-26-2008, 4:57 PM
You know, the US was reluctant to get involved in both WWI and II. Why? Because we didn't want to be embroiled in all those idiot's problems. Look where we are now?

For the record, Obama has been saying draw down in Iraq (which the Iraqi's now want as well) and build up in Afghanistan and really go for Bin Laden.

We should have done that in the first place: a blazing fast all out, no holds barred effort to take those 'tards out.

Instead, the neocons and big oil found a way to do something they wanted since '91, go after Iraq's oil.

Why not have a self-sufficient US, where we don't need foreign (or even our own), where we fix our own problems at home, and never get up to our gonads in someone else's clusterf***?

I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure our economy was booming after WWII, because of WWII. It's a different time and place to compare WWII to our current war. We don't have the giant industrial complex building war machines like we did back then. I'm not sure you can directly link our tanking ecconomy with the war. I'm pretty sure the banks that made the horrible loans aren't tied to the war.

Obama can want out of Iraq all he wants, but just packing up and leaving isn't going to do anything to stabilize that part of the world. Someone will come along and fill Saddam's shoes. We will just end up having to go back and clean up another mess from some lunatic blood thirsty dictator. I agree, that we should focus more attention on Bin Laden, but it's not as easy to find someone as we like to think.

You say that the neocons are going after Iraq's oil. Even if that was true, we need it to survive. As much as the green crowd would like to think otherwise, we are a nation that lives, breathes and eats oil. If oil stopped flowing every part of our national identity would shrivel up and die. Even the majic green cars use oil. There is no way to escape our need for oil, as much as the green crowd wants to close their eyes and wish it away. I'm no fan of the oil companies, but one would think that oil would be much less expensive if this truly was an oil war.

We will always be up in other peoples ****, it's just the way it is. We have friends all over the world that need our help. Those friends of ours are important for one reason or another, and we can't just turn our backs on them.

No matter how much we wish for world peace, there will always be countries and people looking to do us harm for our ideas, economy or whatever other reason we choose. I can't possibly understand why so many people are putting thier faith in a man with 143 days of Senatorial experience. He is the wrong man to bring about "change" in this Country.

I'll be so happy the day he loses, knowing that I can keep my guns for at least another four years. That and my money. I really don't want to help fund a socialist economy where those that refuse to take care of themselves can leach off of me.

jmlivingston
08-26-2008, 8:35 PM
Correct me if wrong, but...

Okay!


During the Reagan and Bush administration, we had a huge military force and no one dared f**k with the US. Clinton administration..downsized military and opened the doors for terrorist acts. (1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, American embassy's) All leading up to 09/11/01. Bush may not have been the best President, but look what he had to face to start it off.


The Clinton administration did not initiate the downsizing of our military. You can thank Bush #1 for that, he initiated a substantial reduction in force after Desert Storm was finished. Back in late '91 almost any SM (service member) could ask to be released from active duty and it was done and discharged within 30 days. At about the same time the "base realignment" process was initiated, which drastically reduced the number of military bases available for training purposes and those that remained were repurposed and often became multi-purpose facilities. As part of all this, the Navy began reducing its number of active ships. Under the Clinton administration what you saw was an ongoing process that began under the older Bush which I believe was legislatively mandated. Clinton sure may not have done much to stop it, but don't blame put the blame on him either.

John

air soft rules!
08-26-2008, 9:18 PM
in other words, "Don't ask, Don't tell" ! Putin, and medvedev are just buying time, they are more worried about china, then they let on,and running over smaller weaker former states,and warsaw pact allies is about all they can do, china has a shortage of oil, and women and china could do to russia what it did to georgia.

ZapThyCat
08-27-2008, 12:10 AM
we will be forced [by force] to be part of the "Global Community",

Welcome to the agenda of the last 5-15 or so presidencies, and the next one as well, whether Obama or McCain is elected.

rayra
08-27-2008, 1:56 AM
Obama has made it clear he wants to increase the size of our military.
... and not ever use it anywhere.

/what a load of crap

rayra
08-27-2008, 2:00 AM
Only one way to do that.....


THE DRAFT.


Wrong. And laughably JUST the thing to scream "boo!" at a bunch of self-centered libertarian-socialists.

Congress would just need to raise the troop level caps and provide the funding. Even now, nearly 7yrs after 9/11, with two major campaigns and the casualties the left has relentlessly tried to make political hay out of, recruitment still meets goals, re-enlistments still meet goals, our total force levels are comparatively unchanged.
And that's despite all the bull****e rhetoric last year about our 'military being broken', in the attempts to surrender / end the surge prematurely to prevent its success.

rayra
08-27-2008, 2:04 AM
Then he is clearly lying in the video. Just click and watch.

Sorry pal, you can't have it both ways.

;)

Oh but he's sure trying. 'Who are you going to believe, me [an empty campaign website promise] or your lying eyes?' [seeing Obama in his own live self promising to GUT out military strengths.

Obama wants more standing manpower for the same reason ALL marxists do - to use against their own population. Just like his campaign trail speech calling for a 'civilian' force equal in strength to the US military.

rayra
08-27-2008, 2:09 AM
I am all for peace through superior firepower, but I just can't align myself with McCain. Voting for Obama is out of the question. I refuse to support another egotistical maniac in the White House. I'm voting for Bill Barr of the Libertarian party. He has no chance of winning but I want my voice to be heard. This country needs a 3rd party option. Both the Democrats and Republicans are failing us.

Over an dover and over, we find people failing to realize that in a close election, voting third party GIVES the victory to the absolute worst choice.
It is EXACTLY what happened with Clinton and Perot in '92.
Clinton NEVER got a supermajority (that's 51% for you liberals out there) of votes, in EITHER election. Yet by dint of the votes WASTED on a third party candidate, he got more than his challenger both times, and thus won the PResidency with IIRC 43% of the vote.
And LIBERAL spokesholes claim to this day that he 'had a mandate from the people'.

In fact, President Bush won in 2004 buy a greater maring that Clinton ever did, yet his 'mandate' was utterly denied by those same Demokrat party apparatchiks.

rayra
08-27-2008, 2:30 AM
You know, the US was reluctant to get involved in both WWI and II. Why? Because we didn't want to be embroiled in all those idiot's problems. Look where we are now?

For the record, Obama has been saying draw down in Iraq (which the Iraqi's now want as well) and build up in Afghanistan and really go for Bin Laden.

We should have done that in the first place: a blazing fast all out, no holds barred effort to take those 'tards out.

Instead, the neocons and big oil found a way to do something they wanted since '91, go after Iraq's oil.

Why not have a self-sufficient US, where we don't need foreign (or even our own), where we fix our own problems at home, and never get up to our gonads in someone else's clusterf***?


Another apparent liberal who doesn't know any real history.

Woodrow Wilson (D) got elected on a platform of Isolationism, then from teh moment he was sworn in pursued a course that led directly to our involvement in WW1.

FDR (D), all conspiracy theories aside, rode us right into conflict with Japan, and did nothing about Hitler except the passive-aggressive Lend-Lease program until AFTER Germany formally declared on us.

Truman (D), while rightfully opposing the spread of communism, did such a piss-poor job of it that the Chinese had no compunction about sending their screaming hordes over the Yalu into North Korea, allowing MacArthur's brilliant Inchon strategy to go to waste, along with many US & Allied Lives. And we're STILL there.

Kennedy (D) allowed a Special Forces war to expand into a real shooting match. And after his death, Johnson (D) MASSIVELY increased our involvement, while PERSONALLY meddling in platoon-level combats, bleeding our nation of ~50k lives for campaigns that bled to capture ground only to give it up a few hours or days later.
It took Nixon (R) to end the Vietnam War by DEFEATING the enemy on the field, effectively, by denying them the 'no go' sanctuaries outside Vietnam's borders, bombing the crap out of NVA and VietCong forces (do you even know the difference?) in Laos and Cambodia and all along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. And by mining Haiphong harbor, thus interdicting the freighters full of russian and chicom SAMs that were supporting the NVA's anti-air efforts - and by bombing Hanoi until the NVA finally actually sat down at the Peace talks in Paris - instead of holding secretive meetings with that scumbag John F'n Kerry.

Clinton (D) stuck our forces into Kosovo where we had no dog in the fight, and did it for the WRONG SIDE.
And he CHOSE to maintain the feckless No Fly zones over the northern and southern thirds of Iraq for EIGHT YEARS. His ENTIRE Presidency. He could have shut it down any time he chose, and never did. And his handling of the WMD inspections regime (alongside the UN) that was so utterly inept that the Iraqis made fools of us for years.


This is all what YOU choose to misrepresent as 'reluctant' involvement.

You then go on to grossly and falsley misrepresent the entire Iraq campaign, utterly. Gulf War II / OIF was the completion of Gulf War I, the completion deliberately denied by the UN mandate for the '90-91 operations. It was teh removal of a terrorist / terrorism supporting regime, the removal of a murderous butchering dictator and his crime family, and the removal of the Baathist Socialist Party from power, from a position of minority dominance of a majority ethnic population. AND it was about WMD. The WMD the UN documented during their inspection regime, but which the left utterly ignores in their gross mischaracterizations of the situation, in their utterly moronic 'art fo the big lie' bumper-sticker slogans. Like the sort you just uttered to misrepresent what's happening there.

spsellars
08-27-2008, 3:06 AM
He wants an additional 92,000 troops, which could only mean, THE DRAFT, as you say.

Not sure about the Army increase, but the Marine Corps increase (from 175,000 to 202,000 by 2011) was approved in January or February of last year IIRC. Sounds to me like he's just jumping on the bandwagon to appear "solid" on the military front.

rayra
08-27-2008, 3:26 AM
That was Hezbollah in Beirut, AL Qaeda didn't exist in '83, being founded somewhere in the 1988-1990 time frame.

They all trace their roots back to the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 50s, when the dream of Pan-Arab supremacy got a bucket of gasoline poured on it by Soviet funding in the middle east. From the moment Egypt's Abdel Nassar stole the Suez Canal by force of arms, the Third Jihad has gathered steam.
Coupled with marxist revolution doctrine and the burgeoning growth and dissemination of the principles of asymmetric warfare, jihadist movements of all stripes sprung up. They included the nephew of Hitler's pet Mufti of Jerusalem (who helped form a Muslim SS Battalion in the Balkans to find an murder jews there. That nephew was Yassir Arafat. I'm sure the liberals here know all about Yassir Arafat. Too bad most of what they "know" is horrifically false.
Anyway, The muslim Shia were not to be left behind in this arms race of sorts, since the Sunni sect have been trying to exterminate them since the years immediately following Mohammed's death, when the member's of that bandit's surviving wife battled for control of his legacy and power. Those that required direct lineage to lead their religous cult (who became the Shia) were driven off.
The Shia mullahs formed their own jihad against the Sunnis that has continued from the very invention of Islam. It was with the lax mishandling of their Ayatollah in teh 60s and 70s (exiled to Paris) that allowed their Shia revolution to boil over and depose the Shah, the last semblance of the Persian empire, which Islam has been digesting since the 600s.
Since their rise to power in IRan in 79 - and that brings to mind ANOTHER disgusting Democrat failure, Jimmy Carters utter ineptitude in allowing american hostages to be held throughout the entire remainder of his Presidency - they've been exporting their Shia Revolution throughout the rest of the Shia diaspora - which includes about a third of Lebanon. Where they bombed us in 83. As well as killing many of our civil and military station personnel.

Al Qaeda is the spawn of a scion of a wealthy Sunni family, Osama Bin Laden. One of SEVERAL sons, well educated, indoctrinated, exposed to revolutionary rhetoric and set free with a huge budget and no constraints.
He was a nobody at the beginning of the Afghan war, in '79. When teh Soviets had managed to foment a communist revolution / coup in Afghanistan, then have their puppet govt invite them in for 'protection', it was TRULY about expanding the Soviet Empire southward, just as all their other efforts in teh Middle East were. And they were met by the mujahadeen. Who'd met every other enemy to cross teh Khyber pass, for over a millenia. Who we used in a proxy fight against communism, arming them with effective weapons to stalemate the Russians. Without our intercession, they would have been eliminated. The more recent Russian decimation of Grozny was nothing new. The Soviets were well along in doing the same to Afghanistan before our Stingers arrived.
After the Soviet withdrawal in '89 (after their own 10yr-long Draw) and their ultimate collapse as a Superpower, Afghanistan was abandoned by everybody. The mujahadeen we'd supported became overwhelmed by the insane jihad spilling out of Pakistan / Waziristan, what became the Taliban. 'Our' Mujahadeen became 'the northern alliance' and was forced into retreat. It was 12yrs later that we returned as a complimentary fight to Iraq, to set that to rights. We've haven't done a thorough job of it because we lack the will. And it isn't President Bush's fault any more than Santa Claus'. Our efforts in Afghanistan have been undercut by a full array of forces, both regional, geopolitical and within our own government agencies, including the State Dept, CIA, and even extending to the Clinton-appointee Generals and staff officers in the Pentagon. In fact the recent CENTCOM commander fired for flatly declaring we wouldn't be fighting in Iran was one of these folks.

Anyway, Osama sought to find a shelter, a base from which to create 'The Base', which is what the literal translation of 'Al Qaeda' is. His money went a long damned way in the corrupt and collapsed nation of Afghanistan and the Taliban. And their long history of warfare provided hime with lots of cannon-fodder.

And across all this, the virulent form of Jihad being sown all over the world, paid for by our own IRREVOCABLE 1st-world need for petroluem, Sunni Wahabism, paid for with Billions of petrodollars by half the House of Saud.
The Saud struck a devil's bargain long ago, and went from a bandit clan of caravan thieves to a major power by binding together with the Wahabi mullahs, crazy old cave-dwelling killers. With their 'blessing' as it were, they rode forth under the black banner of jihad and ultimately conquered what would be named the Saud-i Penninsula. Saudi Arabia. Use to just be called Arabia, until they plastered their clan name on it.
And part of that Devil's bargain is the furtherance of Wahabism. So while half the Princlings of the House of Saud were degenerates in German and Swiss discos in the 70s, another branch was HERE, in the states, attending our colleges, inserting their power structures into our society, and spreading Wahabist madrassas across the world.

The fight against Al Qaeda is jsut the first phase of this Jihad. We're winning it, no matter how many trite deconstructionist bumper slogans liberals spew in their own quest for raq political power in this nation. But the overall Jihad continues nearly unabated. The House of Saud still stands and still spreads their poison, in our universities, in our state dept, in ALL our forms of government leadership, Left Right and psuedo-Center. And all around the world, thier mullahs and our complicit Media socialists foment more and more Jihad.
Inflicting prosperity and democracy on the middle east is the way to win it. A footrace between burgeoning semi-secular properity, backed by bombing the crap out of the Zarqawis and Zawahiris and Quds Force douchebags, against the radicalization of that same generation of angry young men.
We've given IRaqis a clear choice and they've chosen. We've won there. Afghanistan won't be solved until the waziristan border is secure or radioctive.
And we have to cut the head off the Shia snake in Iran as well.
AND we have to destroy the House of Saud.
Until those things happen, we'll continue to suffer sporadic horrors like the low-level jihad on our soil and peak events like 9/11 and repeated mass terror attempts.

And Isolationism simply will not work. Never has. Never will. And that's what makes the self-centered libertarian-socialists all the more pathetic in their pursuits. The djinni is out of the bottle. Has been since the 50s. Pretending the Jihad doesn't exist won't work. And APPEASEMENT by withdrawal is the coward's way. Which also never works. Not for very long, anyway. Just ask England about danegeld. Or the europeans about the Barbary pirates. Or about Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. Or us about staying Patton.
Or the dead Montegnards, South Vietnamese and Cambodian middle class about their betrayal at the hands of a supermajority Democrat congress (when they de-funded our support of the ARVN, which had successfully bottled up the NVA for nearly two full years after our majority withdrawal from Vietnam.
Pop quiz - how many liberals here even know the timeline of that withdrawal, that we were GONE from vietnam, didn't have more than ~2500 troops and advisors on teh ground there, before Congress yanked the rug out from under the South Vietnamese (and other regional govts)? It only took ~3mos before they collapsed without our war material support. And then the Khmer Rouge - more Red communists - took and slaughtered the people of Cambodia. Because we abandoned the entire region.

And yet with all that history, 'Useful Idiots' (as Stalin termed American leftists / liberals) spout 'no war for oil' and cry to abandon the IRaqi and Afghani people to the BUTCHERS that have been killing their own people for millenia.

chris
08-27-2008, 6:28 AM
oh heaven forbid that people in this country learn what it means to SERVE their country other than take its freedoms for granted.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-27-2008, 6:37 AM
Greetings all. I'm new here. I've been reading the posts, trying to figure my way around & such so that I can fit right in (not look stupid). :-)
Anyway, I figured that its time for me to stop reading & start contributing, & this is the perfect post for me start with. Because a big problem many people have is they lack a sense of history. If you don't know what's gone before, you'll have a tough time figuring out what's coming next & what should be done about that.
What impressed me here was Rayra's obvious knowledge & appreciation of history. I just had to comment on how nice it is to see someone that knowledgeable about this subject.

The Raisuli

IGOTDIRT4U
08-27-2008, 11:43 AM
Over an dover and over, we find people failing to realize that in a close election, voting third party GIVES the victory to the absolute worst choice.
It is EXACTLY what happened with Clinton and Perot in '92.
Clinton NEVER got a supermajority (that's 51% for you liberals out there) of votes, in EITHER election. Yet by dint of the votes WASTED on a third party candidate, he got more than his challenger both times, and thus won the PResidency with IIRC 43% of the vote.
And LIBERAL spokesholes claim to this day that he 'had a mandate from the people'.

In fact, President Bush won in 2004 buy a greater maring that Clinton ever did, yet his 'mandate' was utterly denied by those same Demokrat party apparatchiks.

And staying home as a protest vote is just as equally dangerous. Good posts, Rayra

lehn20
08-27-2008, 11:47 AM
Seriously guys. Regardless of who is President, this country needs a DRAFT big time. Everyone should do 2-4 years, it would only help creating a future of men instead of liberal wingnuts.
Think about it!. Every school, college, university is to the left, some almost extreme left!. Our kids are inductrinated by subjective leftwing BS everyday in school from teachers and professors form kindergarden to PHD.
It is pathetic. At least with the draft they would learn something about the US, Freedom, discipline, history, about being a man etc. Instead of ending up as a potsmoking, treehugging fat videogame player living on social wellfar or leftwing preaching whatever. If they went through the military they would have both sides of the coin. Not only the left!!
I am all for the draft. Big time

RomanDad
08-27-2008, 11:55 AM
Wrong. And laughably JUST the thing to scream "boo!" at a bunch of self-centered libertarian-socialists.

Congress would just need to raise the troop level caps and provide the funding. Even now, nearly 7yrs after 9/11, with two major campaigns and the casualties the left has relentlessly tried to make political hay out of, recruitment still meets goals, re-enlistments still meet goals, our total force levels are comparatively unchanged.
And that's despite all the bull****e rhetoric last year about our 'military being broken', in the attempts to surrender / end the surge prematurely to prevent its success.

Sorry.... But the bill is there... Its been there for two years... And the only thing standing in the way is the Republican minority.

Seriously guys. Regardless of who is President, this country needs a DRAFT big time. Everyone should do 2-4 years, it would only help creating a future of men instead of liberal wingnuts.
Think about it!. Every school, college, university is to the left, some almost extreme left!. Our kids are inductrinated by subjective leftwing BS everyday in school from teachers and professors form kindergarden to PHD.
It is pathetic. At least with the draft they would learn something about the US, Freedom, discipline, history, about being a man etc. Instead of ending up as a potsmoking, treehugging fat videogame player living on social wellfar or leftwing preaching whatever. If they went through the military they would have both sides of the coin. Not only the left!!
I am all for the draft. Big time

Theyre not talking about just drafting KIDS....

Are you less than 42 years old? Charlie Rangle wants to draft YOU.


http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementonDraft02142006.html

wamphyri13
08-27-2008, 3:16 PM
Never start a post with the words, "Correct me if I'm wrong." Especially if you are. I have been schooled. I will now go vote for Obama.








JUST KIDDING! I may have been wrong on some of my points, but that doesn't change my opinion of him. I still don't trust the guy.
To those that posted to correct me... why don't you go f....again, just kidding. Thanks for the info.

Lone_Gunman
04-17-2010, 11:36 PM
Uhhhh. You do realize you just resurrected a 2 year old thread to say that right?

Window_Seat
04-18-2010, 12:08 AM
Two weeks.

Erik.

wadalaba
04-18-2010, 1:45 AM
can someone explain to me this "two weeks" thing

Joe
04-18-2010, 2:43 AM
can someone explain to me this "two weeks" thing

In two weeks all your base are belong to us.

Thats what the doj said about ar15's when they first came into the state. They said in two weeks they'd list them and we'd all be illegal. Then they realized they'd have to allow us to register them as AW's. So they never listed them, and here we are today with BB's and MMG's

vantec08
04-18-2010, 6:23 AM
China doesnt have to fire a shot. When their bonds mature, rather than roll them over for another term, all China has to do is present them to the USA and demand remuneration. I can see the exchange -- "oh, you dont have the money to cover your own debt to us? well, you give us the Port of Long Beach for X amount of bond indebtedness. We will take GM for another X amount." And so forth. China looks decades down the road, we look 5 years at most.

OleCuss
04-18-2010, 7:38 AM
.
.
.
When teh Soviets had managed to foment a communist revolution / coup in Afghanistan, then have their puppet govt invite them in for 'protection', it was TRULY about expanding the Soviet Empire southward, just as all their other efforts in teh Middle East were. .
.
.
.

Interesting thread. I wasn't around when it first came up so I'm enjoying it for the first time.

I do want to point out that while "rayra" mostly gets it right he is missing an important fact. Yes, there was a communist regime in Afghanistan which might have been considered a puppet regime - but he missed the fact that Jimmy Carter and company actually fomented an insurgency in Afghanistan with the understanding it was likely to suck the Soviet Union into their own "Vietnam". Note that this action pre-dated any relevant activity by Charlie Wilson.

Here's a link to the relevant interview: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

I keep looking for evidence that this is FUD and haven't found it yet.

Uriah02
04-18-2010, 8:03 AM
:eek::eek::eek:

I fail to see how being unprepared to respond is protection. You'd think a "scholar" like tries to pose himself would've read Aristotle...

Sh00tFurst
04-18-2010, 8:18 AM
Is he going to do it by himself? I've got someone dying to meet him.