Military / Defense

[ccbatson]

Isn't it obvious that this is not how Gates would handle it. Would anyone with common sense announce to a potential opponent with vulnerable allies [[maybe former allies now thanks to Obama) in harms way that they were going to unilaterally disarm...and do it for apparently nothing in exchange?

[elganned]

Um, if this isn't how Gates would handle it, then why did Gates propose it?

Your "Obama delenda est!" attitude is interfering with your perception of reality.

[jiminnm]

The missile defense shield was nothing but a sop to the MIC. a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

forget what the damn PM of Poland says, the people there [[and in the Czech Rep.) were, and are, solidly against it

http://www.huliq.com/27512/poland-pr...defense-system

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL26811020070526

That was then, this is now. I also suggest that you speak with some folks from Poland to find out what they think, as nearly all who I speak with have zero trust that Russia will do anything that they say and, for the first time in a long time [[until now), felt somewhat protected by the US promises.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...bKlZAD9APVE2O0

[ccbatson]

He [[Gates) didn't. It is a long known agenda item for the far left to oppose and dismantle missile defense.

[elganned]

And it is a long known agenda item for the far right to dismantle liberalism, which involves always painting the Democrats as soft on defense. Glad to see you're still with that program, CC.

[Papasito]

JFK had the stugots to stand up to the Bear.
Obama didn't.

Obama is no JFK.
The Democratic party is a shadow of it's former self.
The Democratic party was once patriotic and put Americans first.
Now the Dems permanantly have their tail tucked between their legs, and the only one they stand up to is their own people, because they don't fight back.

[[and if they do, they are labeled racists, rednecks, loose cannons and terrorists)

[Papasito]

That's today's lesson in right wing propaganda. Tune in for tomorrow's lesson on how Obama hates kittens and puppies.

Don't be so shallow.
I am in independant voter as I have stated before. I would vote for a Democrat if he was worth his weight in salt. I would vote for a Republican if he stood up for what is right.

Lately it seems if you say something that doesn't follow the Democrat Party agenda, you are boxed into this label of being a right wing mouthpiece, or a redneck, a racist, a hatemonger, or whatever the catch word of the day is.

Americans are free thinkers. Politicians are not.
They are corrupt and go wherever the money and power takes them.

The Americans of my father and my grandfather's generation never put their tails between their legs. They stood up and defended Europe and our allies, and led the world out of darkness and into prosperity.

[elganned]

Papasito, I find it supremely ironic that you should bring up the Cuban missle crisis.
As I remember, we went to the brink of war to prevent the Russians from basing missles in close proximity to our borders.

Yet we find it offensive that the Russians would object to our basing missles in close proximity to their borders.

If we had actually begun deploying missles to Poland, do you think we might have had a "Missiles of October" scenario with the roles reversed?

What goes around, comes around...

[elganned]

Americans are free thinkers. Politicians are not.
They are corrupt and go wherever the money and power takes them.

You forgot to add, "wherever the money and power handed to them by the American people takes them. Our politicians are returned to office time and again by the very American "free thinkers" you idolize.

So much for your generalization.

As someone wiser than me once said, "You get as good a government as you are willing to fight for; you get as bad a government as you are willing to stand for."

The Americans of my father and my grandfather's generation never put their tails between their legs. They stood up and defended Europe and our allies, and led the world out of darkness and into prosperity.

...only after the rest of Europe had been fighting for several years in both cases.

WWI started in 1914, we didn't get involved until 1918, and even that was a close-run thing. Had the Germans not resorted to unrestricted U-boat warfare, we may have never gotten involved.

WWII started in 1939, but we didn't get into it until the end of 1941, and only after an unprovoked attack by Japan. Again, had Pearl Harbor not happened, it is debatable that we would have gotten involved until much later, if at all.

So don't go waving the flag and saying how we jumped up to save the Free World and lead them into the light. Left to our own devices, we would have been quite content to sit it out.

[ccbatson]

Correct [[again Elganned...jeez, you are having a string of near hits)...we did not get into those wars until OUR interests were involved. Right or wrong, and the same is true in subsequent wars.

[Papasito]

The best way to keep peace is a strong defense.
"Walk softly and carry a big stick".


By the way, what's the exit strategy from Afghanistan?
What's the plan?
Why is Obama the man of peace sending our sons and daughters to die with no plan?
Why cant the great orator open discussions with the Taliban and use his overwhelming charm to bring peace to the mountains of Afghanistan?
or are we going to turn a blind eye to this conflict and let this be our second Vietnam, the way Afghanistan was for the Russians?

[ejames01]

We will get out after wasting a lot more money and lives.

The best way to keep peace is a strong defense.
"Walk softly and carry a big stick".


By the way, what's the exit strategy from Afghanistan?
What's the plan?
Why is Obama the man of peace sending our sons and daughters to die with no plan?
Why cant the great orator open discussions with the Taliban and use his overwhelming charm to bring peace to the mountains of Afghanistan?
or are we going to turn a blind eye to this conflict and let this be our second Vietnam, the way Afghanistan was for the Russians?

[elganned]

On this one, Papasito, we agree. We should leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.

[rb336]

The problem, as I see it, is that now, thanks to dubya's obsession with Saddam, the Taliban and Al Qeada have their sites set firmly on the big prize -- Pakistan and its nukes. We saw what a destabilizing force they were allowed to become during the bush reign of error, and we simply can not allow that to happen

[Detroitej72]

By the way, what's the exit strategy from Afghanistan?
What's the plan?
Why is Obama the man of peace sending our sons and daughters to die with no plan?
Why cant the great orator open discussions with the Taliban and use his overwhelming charm to bring peace to the mountains of Afghanistan?
or are we going to turn a blind eye to this conflict and let this be our second Vietnam, the way Afghanistan was for the Russians?

Your contradicting yourself a bit. A few posts back you said all Democrats tuck their tails and run, now you are advocating them to do just that. You might want to rethink your statements.

[oladub]

President Obama has already ordered 21,000 troops into Afghanistan. General McChrystal is asking for 10,000 -45,000 additional troops. 45,000 represents the 'low-risk option'. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us...litary.html?hp

'Gathered around the Center for a New American Strategy and the Center for American Progress, which have supplied the Obama administration with civilian Pentagon officials dedicated to pursuing a "smart" strategy in Afghanistan, these reincarnations of "the best and the brightest" may yet convince Obama that he can damn the torpedoes and go full speed ahead.

Who, after all, is there to stop them? The "progressives" are too busy smearing the "tea-baggers" as "terrorists" to bother with the impending disaster – and, besides that, they could use a "good war" to divert attention away from the snowballing domestic failures of this administration, and their own apparent powerlessness in its inner councils." http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...s-road-to-war/

I am not so cynical. After all, Senator Obama said he wanted to expand the war and increase the size of US ground forces while still campaigning so this article is wrong to suggest that Obama is just trying to politically respond to Republican neocons.

[Pam]

Peace march in DC on Oct. 5th.

http://www.iraqpledge.org/

[jams]

Your contradicting yourself a bit. A few posts back you said all Democrats tuck their tails and run, now you are advocating them to do just that. You might want to rethink your statements.

Seems to be a common affliction of the "Dittoheads".

[Papasito]

Afghanistan is an offensive action.
A missile shield is a defensive action.
How you get the two confused is beyond me.

Our fight against the Taliban should be handled with special forces and tactical operations,
not with tens of thousands of American troops.

And concerning the missile shield being cancelled, it's the Republican's fault, too. I didn't hear them screaming about it until AFTER they pulled the plug on the project. If the Republicans had our best interest in mind, they would have screamed about it prior to this.
So as far as I'm concerned, I'll stand by my original premise that both parties do not put the safety of the American people as their priority.

[ccbatson]

I disagree...overwhelming force on many levels will have a real on the ground impact as well as a psychologic effect on the enemy.

[Papasito]

That's the beauty of this country, we have the freedom to disagree.

[ccbatson]

Many are arguing that the reason it will not work is that the populace od Afghanistan is not interested in the goals of a military victory.

I would argue that, while this may be true, overwhelming force employed against our enemy serves the primary goal of securing the US and our vital interests. If the populace of Afghanistan benefits as well, that is a nice bonus.

[gibran]

Many are arguing that the reason it will not work is that the populace od Afghanistan is not interested in the goals of a military victory.

I would argue that, while this may be true, overwhelming force employed against our enemy serves the primary goal of securing the US and our vital interests. If the populace of Afghanistan benefits as well, that is a nice bonus.

When we talk of freedom and opportunity for all nations, the mocking paradoxes in our own society become so clear they can no longer be ignored.
Wendell Willkie

[ccbatson]

When at war, the enemy is not given the privilege and presumption of freedom.