Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

Now now, don't write yourself off. You've shown a tendency to actually engage in the discussions of late, rather than comment on the commentators' comments. This trend should be encouraged! Up with conversation, down with meta-conversation!

I'll see if I can find some blogs that support my team's point of view and quote them here. Then when someone disagrees with the said blog I'll demand graphs and research, and ask questions about foreign policy only a handful of people in the world are qualified to answer. Careful indentation and well placed links are a must of course.

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Crazed Rabbit:
So you made up a question and answered it? That's a fresh take on discussion.

---

:rolleyes:

I gave some thoughts of mine on Afghanistan that I thought were relevant. I responded to what you had posted. I mean, really Lemur, you expect me to answer this:

Quote:

---

If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?

---

What's too corrupt? How much is too ineffective? Am I supposed to dredge through GlobalSecurity reports for answers on potential replacements in the Afghan government factions?

What's your answer to that Lemur?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

What's too corrupt? How much is too ineffective? Am I supposed to dredge through GlobalSecurity reports for answers on potential replacements in the Afghan government factions?

What's your answer to that Lemur?

CR

---

Well, Karzai's got some real gems on the record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Am I supposed to dredge through GlobalSecurity reports for answers on potential replacements in the Afghan government factions?

What's your answer to that Lemur?

---

What's wrong with reading security reports? Or The Economist? They've been doing a bang-up job covering this issue. Or The Christian Science Monitor, for that matter?

None of the questions I am posing are blue-sky hey-where-did-that-come-from stumpers. These issues are being debated in public. Counter-insurgency without a legitimate government to support is an exercise in plowing the sea. I thought that was understood.

Quote:

---

What's wrong with reading security reports?

---

A lack of time. :shrug:

Anyway, what is your answer to that question of yours Lemur?

If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?

Oh yeah, Robert Gibbs dimisses the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph as tabloids. Smooth move, that.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Anyway, what is your answer to that question of yours Lemur?

If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?

---

I fear the answer is "no," but I'm hoping somebody will tell me otherwise.

The current pretender to the throne, his father was he most popular choice for leader, the coalition told him to go bugger himself and put up Karzai, a non-entity an stooge of Big Oil.

Too funny to not post, our PM with the anointed one. Picture of the year.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ezoenobama.jpg

Tie between Harry Potter and Kermit the frog

McChrystal troops request shelved pending review
So... apparently they're saying they don't even want to look at McChrystal's proposal until Obama figures out what he wants to do. Don't you think that the assessment of the general in charge should at least plan some role in the decision-making process? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

"Right now the focus is on the strategic assessment itself. It (the troop request) will be shelved until such time that the White House is ready," a defense official said in Washington.

"It is not going to be addressed, or reviewed, or analyzed until the White House is ready to begin discussing it."

---

Well, let's see if the rumors about his resignation turn out to be true....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

McChrystal troops request shelved pending review
So... apparently they're saying they don't even want to look at McChrystal's proposal until Obama figures out what he wants to do. Don't you think that the assessment of the general in charge should at least plan some role in the decision-making process? :dizzy2:

---

And don't you think it would be wise to have some sort of strategy before committing even more soldiers?

That's why the Afghan mission is in so much of a mess already - an invasion without an endgame, supporting a government without a mandate. And since the president is going to have to ask other countries to sacrifice their young men as well, it might be as well to present them with some sort of, you know, plan.

Quote:

---

And don't you think it would be wise to have some sort of strategy before committing even more soldiers?

---

History suggests otherwise, after all Vietnam didn't have a strategy but was won by simply increasing the amount of soldiers there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

And don't you think it would be wise to have some sort of strategy before committing even more soldiers?

---

Absolutely. :yes:

There are a few problems with that statement as it applies to the Obama Afghanistan strategy. First, McChrystal was Obama's chosen man to oversee the fight in Afghanistan, replacing the previous general in charge just this May. And what was their reasoning? Well, it seemed they had a new strategy for Afghanistan and needed a new general to implement it.

Quote:

---

he leadership shift comes as the Obama administration has voiced increasingly urgent concern about the surge in violence in Afghanistan as well as unrest in neighboring Pakistan.

"We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership is also needed," Gates said at a hastily convened Pentagon news conference.

---

The second problem with what you said is that the White House said that McChrystal's report isn't even being considered until they settle on their new strategy. McChrystal submitted a 66 page report, which I'm pretty sure had more written in it than "More troops!!!". He'd be remiss if he didn't also have a plan on how to use them. Essentially, the White House has said they don't care what he has to say- it's not going to be part of the decision-making process.

So, they had a new strategy this spring. Apparently, it was a miserable failure because they claim now that they have no strategy and need to formulate one. Further, Obama is not interested in the input of the general he appointed when it comes to formulating this strategy. Sounds like BS to me.

Obama wants to increase the amount of school that kids recieve throughout the year; including weekends and summers. Now I don't necessarily disagree with him, but anyone want to take a guess at how much more money the schools will need? Anybody want to guess how much the Air Conditioning/Oil Heating will add to carbon emissions and "harm our environment"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Anybody want to guess how much the Air Conditioning/Oil Heating will add to carbon emissions and "harm our environment"?

---

The only place to extend the school year would be summer, so I don't think oil heating is gonna be a big issue. Then again, it's not as though you're putting forward a serious argument.

Quote:

---

So, they had a new strategy this spring. Apparently, it was a miserable failure because they claim now that they have no strategy and need to formulate one.

---

And what major event has taken place recently which means the situation has now changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The only place to extend the school year would be summer, so I don't think oil heating is gonna be a big issue. Then again, it's not as though you're putting forward a serious argument.

---

The weekends as well and after 3 PM. What do you mean "only the summer"? What serious arguement? I don't even disagree, our kids are semi-retarded and are in need of a better education. The current school year is based on an agrarian lifestyle that is no longer a reality. Plus, teachers lives are far too easy and they should be worked to the grave.

I'm just saying that the increase in environmental destruction will be untold and immoral due to Air Conditioning.

more school hours != better education

Regardless of that, this is a decision that should not be made by the federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And what major event has taken place recently which means the situation has now changed?

---

The public got wise on the Whitehouse's act?

Quote:

---

The public got wise on the Whitehouse's act?

---

At the core of McCrystals idea for attempting a successful counter insurgency was the requirement for a relatively stable local authority with sizable support. The recent elections in Afghanistan have shown that it doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Obama wants to increase the amount of school that kids recieve throughout the year; including weekends and summers. Now I don't necessarily disagree with him, but anyone want to take a guess at how much more money the schools will need? Anybody want to guess how much the Air Conditioning/Oil Heating will add to carbon emissions and "harm our environment"?

---

Wow, that made me laugh hard. I mean, people would go that low to bash Obama? If you're being serious, am I allowed to facepalm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Regardless of that, this is a decision that should not be made by the federal government.

---

I'm not familiar with the arcanums of the US federal system, and while your Constitution might (or might not) state that this decision should only be taken by federal states, in what way are they better-suited or more competent when it comes to school? Wouldn't it seem better to you that all american children have access to the same level of education? I'm not talking about university and what not, but about primary school.
Apart from that, yes I agree that more school hours doesn't mean better education, in some cases. Once again, I'm not familiar with the US education system, can't really comment on this.

When calling someone Hitler loses its shine, where do you go? How about enemy of humanity? (Kinda like Ming the Merciless, I guess.)

Quote:

---

When calling someone Hitler loses its shine, where do you go?

---

Well where could you go with a home skooling conspiracy theory cretinist wingnut?
Look on the bright side, with all his campaigns for family values how long will it be before Trent Frank gets caught in a gay sex scandal,

I thought it was common courtesy to wait at least a year into an administration before calling for an armed coup.

Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM

By John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

• Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
• Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
• They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
• They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
• They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
• They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
• They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
• They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do? Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com.

-edit-

Wow, that was fast, Newsmax has pulled the story. How off-the-wall do you need to be to be too crazy for Newsmax?

-edit of the edit-

Found an archived copy of the entire article here.

I am not sure whether I am absolutely shocked, or not surprised at all.

I refer back to several pages ago, where several non-American posters called some of the opposition close to sedition and treason.



Are they out of their mind?
What's up with the populist rightwing of the American right? Are they dreaming of Argentina, 1980? Chile, Brazil? They too all believed they were fighting a marxist take-over.
There is a certain streak to the US right that is dangerously close to fascism. Ultra-right, ultra-religious, too pro-military, and in the end not very democratic at all. :shame:


Go blow up some Feds, guys. Just a truck is all it takes for your resistance to bring down a huge federal office. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [B

Lemur[/B]'s Newsmax article]blah, blah, blah...Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars...blah, blah blah

---

<puts on white suit and does best Richardo Montalban impression>

"Welcome to Fantasy Island!"

Where does Obama find these people?

Quote:

---

That Jennings knew of a sexually active 15-year-old, of any gender, involved with “an older man” and didn’t take steps to report that relationship to the student’s parents or to authorities has made him a target for criticism -- long before he was put in charge of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

---

:dizzy2:
CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

What's up with the populist rightwing of the American right? Are they dreaming of Argentina, 1980? Chile, Brazil? They too all believed they were fighting a marxist take-over.
There is a certain streak to the US right that is dangerously close to fascism. Ultra-right, ultra-religious, too pro-military, and in the end not very democratic at all.

---

Not true at all. Yes, the fringe (both left and right) has the biggest mouth, but in reality has very little overall support. Also, would you care to define the "ultras" that you've mentioned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Not true at all. Yes, the fringe (both left and right) has the biggest mouth, but in reality has very little overall support. Also, would you care to define the "ultras" that you've mentioned?

---

Timothy McVeigh is very real. And I'd like to prevent another one.

There is an overlap between him and the right of the right. He was not a coincidence, not a single fruitcake. He simply acted on what is spouted, on what is believed, by many.

The brew consists of the following ingredients:
- Anti federal government
- Pro-gun. Rather, extremist fear of Feds disarming the populace
- An excessive fondness of the military
- Anti UN
- Republican
- Dissapointment with the GOP
- Libertarianism
- Racism
- Anti taxes
And a certain fondness of consipracy theories. Of the idea that America is in the process of turning into a dictatorship.

Of course, simply being a Republican against tax increase doesn't an extremist make. It is the brew, the extremism, a degree of anger, and a fanatical and unquestioned belief in it all that makes up the extreme right.

It is not isolated. It feeds, and it is fed, constantly. By talk radio, by Fox, by the internet. And it trickles down into the more sober right, and up to the extremist hotheads.

None of this started with Obama. He does seem to have awoken these sentiments. Again, some ideas are now considered mainstream by their adherents that are tantamount to treason and sedition.