This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Empty Words

President Obama on Oct.22, 2008:

“It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House.”

During the campaign Afghanistan was framed as the “good war”. Iraq was an "illegal war" about daddy’s revenge, oil, money for Cheney’s buddies and cowboy diplomacy. Afghanistan, according to the liberals, was where we dropped the ball. Afghanistan, not Iraq, was where the terrorist plotted our demise. This was the “anti-Bush” position. It allowed the left to be viewed as hawks while criticizing Bush as a war-monger. The anti-Bush position was campaign rhetoric and nothing more.

The fringe (no longer mainstream) media dutifully went along by giving us a running tally of war deaths and even though we are loosing more soldiers in Afghanistan than at any time since the war began, that running tally has disappeared. Bush was criticized by the media for not allowing the caskets of fallen soldiers to be photographed. They accused him of hiding the cost of war. Obama changed the policy and now the media is no longer interested in taking the pictures. Obama is not complaining.

Now, while Obama dithers, the Taliban is emboldened, America is less safe, our soldiers are dying and the media doesn‘t care.

What has changed? The candidate who would take any position needed to win, won.

82 comments:

BikerBard said...

I believe this topic refers to ANYTHING Guy Faulkes (Faux) has to post. On another blog, he was referred to as a, "sockpuppet." What a great description of him -says it all! ROTHLMAO!

oatz said...

BikerBard bob and weave all you want NAME ONE Obama campaign promise kept? Gitmo, no taxes on 95% of Americans, Out of Iraq or Afghanistan?

Your SILENCE on this topic speaks volumes. Mudsling, name call, cuss,or insert dead writer quote here all you want, but Hope & Change makes Carter look like a Genius. Can you say Stagflation or Misery Index? Words just Words only William Ayers wrote them.....

guy faulkes said...

What can I say? Poor BB is so obsessed with me that he is stating to disagree with me when I haven't posted anything on the thread. If this doesn't prove I own him, what will it take?

Is it not amusing to see how liberals scramble to try to find anything at which they can even contend that Obama has had success? He even made the ridiculous claim he saved or created a significant number of jobs. Tell that to the millions that are out of work, not just the almost ten percent that is calculated from unemployment office figures, but the over seventeen percent that includes the small business people and the self employed that are out of work. These people cannot file for unemployment benefits. Obama is a joke, although bad one. The fringe (mainstream) media could not even debunk a Saturday Night Live skit to protect him.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

Guard your skin, I think BB wants to wear it.

Sarkazein said...

Blogger-

The worst part of the hypocrisy you wrote of, is the liberals will defend Obama's actions/lack there-of no matter which road he takes. There is no right or wrong in the liberal's world.

Sarkazein said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

OK, sure, two or three additional combat brigades. Where will they come from? Hasn't anyone noticed that we are using up our shiny spiffy army faster than it can recover? Are you suggesting we need a draft so you too can feel the pain? It sounds so easy to send all those young men and women to kill and be killed. Has anyyone here read the NYTimes article (August 1st) about the suicide epidemic that our own local National Guard experienced? Or the August 30th article in the Indystar?
Thank God Obama has enough sense to "dither" before making a stupid hasty decision. Cheney has some bloody nerve to criticize the current administration.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, Obama's dithering has encouraged the Taliban. This has increased the deaths among both our military personnel and the civilian population of Afghanistan.

I have not read the article in the failing publication "the New York Times" and I have never heard of the "Indystar" although I suspect it to be another left wing propaganda instrument. Please provide links if you want us to discuss these articles.

Have you considered a blog name that would give you some individual identity?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"I have not read the article in the failing publication "the New York Times" and I have never heard of the "Indystar" although I suspect it to be another left wing propaganda instrument."

You really sound like a Know Nothing here as I have been charging for weeks.

Can you answer Anonymous question?

" two or three additional combat brigades. Where will they come from? Hasn't anyone noticed that we are using up our shiny spiffy army faster than it can recover? Are you suggesting we need a draft so you too can feel the pain? "

Do you also want to rise taxes as it cost $500,000.00 per soldier per year deployed to Afghanistan.

You seem to have fewer answers today even incorrect ones. That could mean you are thinking for a change.

Honest Debate said...

Nonny (if that's your real name),

You missed the point. I purposely made no comment on what should or should not be done. I quoted Obama resolutely stating his intentions regarding Afghanistan during the campaign.

He sent Rahm Emanuel out to spread the lie that questions "have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side" regarding Afghanistan. We now know that Bush handed Obama a thorough review which he mostly adopted.

Obama hand picked his general and is now ignoring him.

Obama, if he is to be believed, had already made his decision. He's is not carefully weighing options he is playing politics with the safety of our soldiers and the security of our nation.

It's his war now and he doesn't have a clue. He's like a dog chasing a car. The dog didn't think about what he'd do once he caught it.

Honest Debate said...

LiberalPOV and Nonny (if that's his real name),

Ask your question to Obama who said:
"That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan."

guy faulkes said...

Since you ask, I will answer the questions. I would have thought that the answers would be self evident even to liberals.

" two or three additional combat brigades. Where will they come from? Hasn't anyone noticed that we are using up our shiny spiffy army faster than it can recover? Are you suggesting we need a draft so you too can feel the pain? "

They will come from our standing armed forces. There is a waiting list for volunteers so the faster than it can recover is bull. Also as I believe that shiny spiffy was meant to be a sarcastic, detrimental remark, it offends me. As it should everyone. No we do not need a draft because we have plenty of volunteers.

Do you also want to rise taxes as it cost $500,000.00 per soldier per year deployed to Afghanistan.

No, I want to cut pork laden projects, stop the porkulas bill, and limit entitlements to those that really need them. I would like for the federal government to go back to doing only those things the Constitution allows it to do. Defending us from foreign terrorists and other foreign aggressors is one of these things. We also need tax cuts to stimulate the economy instead of borrowing money we cannot repay and printing money that we can't back. Both of these are going to cause inflation on a scale unbelievable.

I hope this helps you, but I doubt it will. You have information retention deficit disorder.

Anonymous said...

HD - How do you know if he is playing politics? Are you some kind of mind reader? The evidence is clear that Obama is not taking the "easy" way out and throwing bodies into the fray as chicken hawks love to do. Throwing more troops (which we don't have) may actually further inflame the local population which already hates us thanks to abu ghraib and Dick Cheyney's torture chambers at the infamous Guantanamo prison.
You don't have any answers either. In fact you are just playing politics. You are just going to carp and complain no matter what President Obama does or doesn't do. Let's make a prediction. If Obama sends more troops you will complain and if he does anything else you will complain. Anyone want to take that bet?

guy fauleks said...

Anonymous, I personally supported Obama on two issues. He authorized taking out the pirates (even though he should have done it sooner and taken out their mother ship.) He called the dweeb at the award show that insulted Taylor Swift a jackass.

Anonymous said...

Guy Faulkes - If we had all that many volunteers, why are we sending the same ones back time and time again, for 2, 3, 4 deployments when we know the risk of permanent damage rises each time a soldier is exposed to the hellholes over there. If you give a flying fart about those soldiers you"ll read the articles in NYtimes and the Indianapolis Star. Just the fact that we are already reduced to sending our "citizen soldiers" overseas time and time again is clear evidence that our military is under severe strain already. You must not care about those brave volunteers if you consider them as disposable as baby wipes. And not raise taxes? Take food from children's mouths and cut education and health care programs so you can keep your pennies in your greedy fist? Or do you think if we keep sending the same soldiers back again and again, they'll all commit suicide and save us the pension money? How despicable.

bridle said...

Oatz, You want some Obama accomplishments? Recall that this time last year, Richard Burr was telling his wife to take out all their money because the banks were about to go under and our economic infrastructure was about to crash and burn. Preventing the total collapse of our economy is an accomplishment I think. The Dow Jones index has been climbing steadily since March. The stimulus has prevented us from an all out catastrophic depression and the GDP is growing again.
Iraq forces are being drawn down responsibly. We are now investing in alternative energy and education and health care reforms. Obama has ended the Bush administration war on science. This administration has opened its records of visitors. It has invested in infrastructure and has ended pay discrimination against women and minorities (ledbetter act). He toughened ethics rules. He has created many measures that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which is ultimately the greatest threat to our national security. And he has begun to repair the damage that was done to our international reputation as the world bullies. Check out Politifact.com and keep in mind that Mr. Obama has been opposed by some of the most powerful and wealthy people in the country who want to see him fail, even if the rest of us go down too. (See Rush Limbaugh et al). For less than one full year he has done an amazing amount under extraordinarily trying circumstances.

bridle said...

HD - On February 17, Obama did send two more brigades to Afghanistan. Now McChrystal wants 40,000 more troops. Doesn't it make sense to you that we should know who is going to be in charge of the government over there before we start sending more support?

Sarkazein said...

"Thank God Obama has enough sense to "dither" before making a stupid hasty decision."-a-mous


Obama had made the decision before the election, now he is reneging. The word "dithering" gives him too much credit.

Honest Debate said...

Nonny,

I know Obama is playing politics because of his previous statements about Afghanistan. He was playing politics then by framing the issue as revenge (get Osama) when the solution was much more complicated (change the face of the Middle East). He set out a clear agenda and ran on it. He positioned himself as the anti-Bush and when elected embraced many of the same policies he railed against. That's playing politics.

As to the "easy" way out, there is none. The world is dangerous.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

You make a good point about the brigades sent in February, I had forgotten.

I don't know the best strategy. I have read opinions of smart military people that I respect that go both ways. Here's one that supports Biden's plan. But to answer your question, no I don't think the election in Afghanistan should determine our resolve to win, the resolve that Obama seemed to have during the campaign.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-"... more troops. Doesn't it make sense to you that we should know who is going to be in charge of the government over there before we start sending more support?"


NO, the death count has increased substantially there.
He either takes the General's advice, or he sacks the General, or he gets out. What we have here, is a boy trying to make a man's decision.

Bridle said...

Sarkazein - Obama did promise to focus on Afghanistan and he did immediately send 2 brigades in February. The scene is changing constantly and the recent election debacle threatens our legitimacy. Obama is not like Bush who stated his position and refused to budge no matter what the circumstances. There is no evidence that Obama is considering walking away from Afghanistan. But a knee jerk reaction to escalate without a clear political strategy will end us up in another morass such as Vietnam, or may sink us altogether as it did the Soviets. Escalation by itself can cause all kinds of damage and we need to carefully consider all the ramifications before responding too recklessly. General McChrystal is in charge of the fighting, not the overall strategy. He needs to remember that.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle, you wrote: "Obama is not like Bush who stated his position and refused to budge no matter what the circumstances."

You may have missed it but there was this thing called "the surge" that turned things around in Iraq. At the time it had almost no support but we had a President with a resolve to win despite the politics.

Senator Obama said "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

He was flat out wrong then, lets hope he gets it right this time.

WWII vet said...

As a WWII Vet, I wish we could never fight another war unless we are free to do it like the big one--total destruction of an enemy.

Once we started getting into wars where we were concerned about collateral damage, we began to lose. You can't fight a war with your hands tied.

Beginning with Korea on, we have just sent our young men and women to be chewed up in quagmires with no satisfactory endings.

In the future, if we cannot identify an enemy against whom we can use all our power, including nukes, we should stay home. Send the CIA instead.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle- We have our own election debacles right here. Does that mean our military deserves less?
Obama has had years to form an opinion on Afghanistan. You are writing he is supposed to go with the flow as it is ever changing. NO, he is supposed to DIRECT the flow. Of course the war is ever changing. This is more reason to either follow the General's advice, or cut and run. Indecisiveness was the motto of the VN War, by everybody except the enemy. Are you thinking the Taliban and Alqueda are wishy-washy?

Liberal POV said...

Sark

" What we have here, is a boy trying to make a man's decision."

What did 6 years of macho war, mission accomplished President Bush and war mongering Dick Cheney get us?

How long has Obama been in office?

bridle said...

HD, another interpretation of the successful "surge" is that we were paying the Sunni insurgents, about 100,000 of them, 300 dollars a month apiece not to attack us. No doubt the extra troops contributed to security in Iraq, but the constant presence of all the armed foreigners inflamed the anger of the Iraqis to the point where the shoe-throwing journalist was treated like a hero by the population.

Sarkazein said...

WWII-

"In the future, if we cannot identify an enemy against whom we can use all our power, including nukes, we should stay home"-WWII



How do you stop them from coming here as occurred on 9/11? We should have nuked Tora Bora (sp).

bridle said...

Sark - We do have election debacles and the one in 2000 nearly destroyed this country. But if we are sending our young men and women to die in a foreign country to support a foreign government, shouldn't we at least know who that government is? Don't they deserve to die in support of a legitimate government? One that is not foul and corrupt?

bridle said...

Sark - I agree Obama should decide what the mission is. That doesn't mean letting General McChrystal call the shots.

guy faulkes said...

POV :How long has Obama been in office?

One day was to long, but enough people were fooled that we are stuck with him until he is possibly impeached after 2010 or defeated in 2012.

Anonymous: Why are we sending the same ones back time and time again, for 2, 3, 4 deployments when we know the risk of permanent damage rises each time a soldier is exposed to the hellholes over there.

Well duhh! They are career military personnel that continue to place their lives in danger to protect us all. This is all of their own volition as they are all volunteers. Your previous slur and your description of these brave people in the armed services as baby wipe are indeed despicable and you sir or madame might well be considered something worse.

As for your lame comment on stealing food from children, I would wager I give more to charity and social causes than you. Giving people help because I feel like it is one thing and having my money stolen from me to give to people fully able to support themselves money in order for the liberals to fund a voting block with entitlement programs is something else.

For the second time, provide us with a link to the articles you reference and we can debate them. Again, I believe very little the failing liberal New York Times prints. This opinion must be shared or it would not be failing. I have never heard of the Indianapolis Star. Is it bigger than ,say, the Blowing Rocket? Is it also failing? In any case, as I do not waste money buying these papers, you are going to have to give me a link so I can read what you want to discuss.

guy faulkes said...

One that is not foul and corrupt? - birdle

I assume you are talking about Acorn, Jones, the tax cheats and scoundrels in the cabinet and serving as czars. What would you have our servicemen do?

Anonymous said...

Guy you lazy bum - you could have looked it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/02suicide.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.indystar.com/section/NEWS16&template=theme&theme=soldiers
Guy said "This is all of their own volition as they are all volunteers."
You are the one who is OK with using the soldiers like disposable baby wipes. Your attitude is "hey they volunteered, they asked for it."
Easy for you in your smug arrogance to say.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Shame on you, Anonymous (and I do wish he or she would pick a name and become a regular here) is presenting well though out and written comments.
The conservative cult here needs more than my voice pushing back.
Anonymous has been respectful in all the comment so far why can you not do the same and try to understand Anonymous' POV.

I think the comment "Your previous slur and your description of these brave people in the armed services as baby wipe are indeed despicable and you sir or madame might well be considered something worse" was directed at folks like you and the other conservatives that want to keep throwing bodies and tax dollars into a situations with no good answers without careful though as to what the least damaging outcome.
Think about what is being posted.
Guy if you can be certain of what needs to be done in Afghanistan you my friend don't know much about the Afghanistan which is likely the case.

Here's another classic Guy comment.
"This is all of their own volition as they are all volunteers"
Sure they volunteered some for health insurance for their families, some because that was the only job available, many from latin American for a chance at American citizenship others for a chance at an education.
Why are we there Guy and how will we know when we win? Are we making the threat of terrorism better or worse? Is American safer being in Afganastan or not being in the Afganastan? Will more Americans help or hurt?

Anonymous said...

Sorry Guy, I forgot to be respectful. That whole "they asked for it" shtick really gets under my skin.

guy faulkes said...

Why are we there Guy and how will we know when we win? Are we making the threat of terrorism better or worse? Is American safer being in Afganastan or not being in the Afganastan? Will more Americans help or hurt? - POV

We are there to prevent terrorist attracts from happening in this country as we have been successful in dong since 9/11.

I just said we have prevented more attacks since 9/11,

America (not American) is safer with our troops being in Afghanistan (not Afganastan where they are containing terrorists.

Will more Americans help or hurt what?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

The General is manning up to the task, Obama is not.
And you are right, Gore hurt the country by contesting the election. All recounts in Florida show President Bush as the winner. And that was with ACORN in full swing. The local Democrats came up with the bogus butterfly ballot issue (used in many counties around the country) because they were certain that they had cheated enough to win. They were wrong.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

The surge worked. Bush did change strategy and you said he wouldn't budge. Bush took the advice from the general in charge. He took responsibility for his decision.

Sarkazein said...

A'mous-

"...That whole "they asked for it" shtick really gets under my skin.-A'mous


That is your warped translation, and you are not being truthful.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, the problem you reference in both these links is real. It is a problem not only associated with war, it has been associated with other traumatic events such as car accidents, natural disasters, even a death in the family. While suicide caused by a grief or guilt response is regrettable, it is going to continue as long as people are human. If you want to stop this from happening because of war, then you are going to have to stop war. This will not happen either. Your links did indicate that help was being given to those in =need and that further research was being done to make this help better in the future. What do you you suggest, letting terrorists kill people in this country so that others will have this same suicidal response because we did nothing to stop the terrorists?

Soldiers are brave patriots that well knew what they were doing when they enlisted. Your portrayal of their being used as baby wipes (your words as was shiny spiffy army) with no regard for their welfare is beyond despicable.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Again you attitude is that they're to be used up, three months home to see the baby and mama and back to war.

You want no part of looking for better options that wouldn't be manly.

I noticed when you don't have answers you go into proofreading mode.

The term "We are there to prevent terrorist attracts from happening in this country " is pretty broad. Do you have any idea what that means or how we achieve this task? We have been at it for six years do we have more or less people wanting to do us harm?

Anonymous said...

There you go again with "they knew what they were doing.." It so happens that the two members of the 1451st who died in Iraq were not there by choice. They had fulfilled their commitment and had been involuntarily stop-lossed. You may have noticed that the people who were struggling in the articles were National Guard, who did not volunteer to be professional soldiers. They signed up to be Citizen Soldiers of the North Carolina National Guard. They are supposed to guard our homeland, not Iraq.
Why is the military using National Guardsmen and stop-lossed troops? Because there are not enough fresh troops to send to these stinking endless wars for oil. Why are there not enough fresh troops? Because chicken hawks don't want a politically unpopular draft and teaparty tax nuts don't want to pay them. So we send unstable kids, old men, and the same survivors back over and over again until no one is left standing. But that's ok with you because hey, suicide (and getting blown all to hell) happens, right? You and Rumsfeld would make a great couple. Wasn't that his response, "stuff happens"?
What in the world makes you think destroying our military and sending our National Guard overseas will protect us here at home?

Honest Debate said...

The question isn't, how many troops or how long will we be there or where do we get the troops. The only thing that matters is will America be safe if we don't act. If action is required then we must act...at any cost. WWII Vet's comment, "In the future, if we cannot identify an enemy against whom we can use all our power, including nukes, we should stay home" rings true. I don't necessarily agree that we shouldn't be concerned about collateral damage because technology enables us to be more precise than the WWII days but the sentiment is right on. If we don't intend to win then don't bother.

Obama said this was a war of necessity. Did he mean it or not?

BikerBard said...

Oatz:
You REALLY don't know how to use Google. Try Obama promises kept. You'll find 3 pages from one site alone. To name a few...
-Passed stimulus package to restore financial sector
-Out of Irag in 16 months (relax)
-No more torture (reverse of Bush/Cheney/)
-Credit Card Bill of Rights
-expanded small business loans
-forclosure prevention fund
-expand SCHIP eligibility
-appoint special advisor on programs to prevent violence to women
-2 brigades sent to Afganistan
-Americans now have rights to visit family in Cuba
-release of presidential records in a timely manner (reverse of Bush)
-passage of Matthew Shepard Act ending discrimination due to sexual orientation
-funding to rebuild schools in New Orleans (a Bush disgrace)
-investing in alternative energy
-Cash For Clunkers program
-reverse restrictions on stem cell research
-RESTORED OUR IMAGE IN THE WORLD


Need more?

(Say "Hi" to Sockpuppet- I'll get him to bark for us again) LOL!

bridle said...

HD - Of course we need to secure Afghanistan. The religious nutcases there are bleeding into Pakistan and Pakistan has nukes. The question is how to best secure it. Short of genocide and wiping out the whole country (which would set everyone in the planet against us, not to mention being unspeakably evil)there are no facile choices. The evidence does not indicate that flooding the country with armed foreigners will secure it. It didn't work for the Brits or the Soviets who poured blood and money into it for years and years.
Obama is doing exactly what he needs to do, which is consider all the options carefully before committing lives and resources.

BikerBard said...

Faux: "You lie!"

Wasn't it you who criticized Obama for killing three juveniles (the pirates?) Now you say you supported him.

Wow. You can speak out of both sides of your mouth! Now "Bark, Sockpuppet!"

Sarkazein said...

With the assorted liberals commenting on the cost in troops for the war, why are you not calling for the pull-out of Afghanistan? Why do you wait to see what Obama is going to do before you take a stand?
You all are as weak as he is. Take a stand... either get out of Afghanistan or do what the General says will win it, or sack the General. But don't stand there like a shopper trying to select a new purse, take a stand.
How about the guys in harms way waiting for the COMMANDer-in Chief to take a stand, so the troop is not going on a mission for nothing but a stall for more time for Obama to TAKE COMMAND!

BikerBard said...

Liberal POV:
How right you are about Faux going into "proofreading mode" when he is faced with unrefutable arguments (yet he wrote, "one day is to[SIC] long") on this very thread.

I admire your tenacity and logic. Keep up the good work!

Sarkazein said...

BB-

You have NO sense of irony. Get out of your parents basement and grab some air.


"Wasn't it you who criticized Obama for killing three juveniles (the pirates?) Now you say you supported him."-BB

Liberal POV said...

HD

"The only thing that matters is will America be safe if we don't act. "

This is what Fox news and the Fear media does is sell fear like it was a breakfast cereal.

Europe has had far more acts of terrorism and they are not cowering in fear.

You get is you car and go to work everyday and at least as many people die in auto accidents as on 911 everyday. Why is that fear not sold to you?

Sarkazein said...

"Europe has had far more acts of terrorism and they are not cowering in fear."-POV


As Obama appears to be, as he fiddles.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Those obcessed with fear seem to be conservatives as that's what the Hertiage Foundation pushes to Fox and hate radio to sell.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

In your imagination only.

Honest Debate said...

Two questions Lib.

Why do you s'pose that Europe has more terrorist attacks than the U.S., could Bush's policies have had a roll?

How many terrorist sniper bombers are on the highways determined to kill in the name of Allah?

Sarkazein said...

"Europe has had far more acts of terrorism and they are not cowering in fear.

You get is you car and go to work everyday and at least as many people die in auto accidents as on 911 everyday. Why is that fear not sold to you?"-POV

This is probably one of the most telling and upside down comments ever made by a person who actually shows some interest in world affairs.

Liberal POV said...

HD

You're consumed with Fox fear. Europe was having terrorism long before Al qaeda.
Ever here of IRA, Bass separatist, the Bliss bombings of WWII, Partisans ( they were on our side )?

We do have serious problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but lets find the best answer possible and make it with rational though not unreasoned fear exploited by right wing propaganda.
The fact is the damaged done by us to ourselves over the last six years with the loss of close to 5000 men and women over 30,000 with serious wounds and close to 3 trillion dollars in cost is far greater than any terrorist could have done.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Ugh... are you going to answer my questions?

BikerBard said...

Sark:
Nice cover. That wasn't irony-it was stupidity.But I do appreciate you girls sticking together. LOL!

Sarkazein said...

BB- Let me 'splain the irony to you. The liberals talked about how we have destroyed our relationship with the Muslim world. Liberals made excuses for the terrorists/Muslim extremists having come from poor existence (similar to Obama's brother) and suffer from the thought of no future. All of this lack of understanding is President Bush's fault.
First thing Obama does, is blow away some Muslim youth with over-powering force, then brags about it...irony.

WWII Vet said...

At the end of WWII we had total surrender. Today, we are allies and friends with the Germans, Japanese and Italians.

Since then, with fears of collateral damage, other neighboring countries becoming involved, image concerns, we lost every time. We sent our young men and women to be chewed up in Korea, and that war is not over yet; Viet Nam and lost; Somalia and we are still at war; first Gulf war and had to go back; Iraq war and did not have a real win. Afghanistan, a quagmire with no possible solution. Bosnia, we really did not fight.

Even one of the strongest answerers to my comment still takes comfort in "I don't necessarily agree that we shouldn't be concerned about collateral damage because technology enables us to be more precise."

Your generation still wants a sanitary war. You cannot win a sanitary war.

Liberal POV said...

WWII Vet

Russia did not fight a sanitary war in Afghanistan and they not only lost the war but the entire USSR collapsed.

I remind you and others we have so for avoided a nuclear war by not following the most hawkish war mongers.
Dick Cheney and Rumsfelt may be the single biggest reason we're loosing the support of the people of Afghanistan and without their support we lose, no matter how many troops.

oatz said...

I was once young and naive, I was once a Democrat, having grown up and after having worked in the real world, I have the advantage of knowing the LIBTARD playbook.
Pg. 1…Lie,
Pg. 2…Lie
repeat as necessary. Say it’s for the children.

oatz said...

Monday, November 2, 2009
Ford earns $1 billion, how's that bailout working out for GM, Chrysler?
Let's also not forget that Ford is set to surpass nationalized GM by 2012. Guess that bailout to avoid bankruptcy, only to go into bankruptcy and emerge union and Obama-owned isn't working out so well now, is it? So while GM and Chrysler are still wallowing in misery, Ford looks to be heading out of the worst of times early. From The Detroit News: Ford earns $1 billion.

Ford Motor Co. posted a surprise third quarter profit of nearly $1 billion today -- its first operating profit in nearly two years

The company reported net income of $997 million, or 29 cents per share, a $1.2 billion improvement compared with the same period last year. After taxes and excluding one-time items, Ford earned $873 million or 26 cents a share.

Wall Street had been expecting the Dearborn automaker to lose 12 cents a share, according to a survey of 11 analysts by Thomson Reuters. Ford lost $129 million during the same three-month period a year ago.

...Ford, which had promised to break even in 2011, now says it will be "solidly profitable" within two years.

It will be interesting to see what the Q4 numbers look like, as the disastrous "cash for clunkers" program basically stole sales from future quarters to artificially prop up Q3 numbers. That's entirely been lost on some in the media, including one acid-case political DetNews blogger beamed over from the 60s. Since she dissed Stacy McCain some time ago, refusing to link him, I will return the favor for Stacy here and not provide a link. But what she is saying is "hey - the stimulus is working!" "Cash-for-clunkers" is a success. Well yeah - people will buy stuff if you pay them to do it. Duh! For libs like this, it takes total and willful ignorance in that Ford attributes its profits to be 2% cash-for-clunkers, 98% hard work. Commenters like this one dissected her bs pretty quick this time.

Honest Debate said...

WWII Vet,

I qualified my comment with "I don't necessarily agree" because I do think collateral damage should be a concern. We have many more options than we used to. That doesn't mean I want a sanitary war, I don't believe there is such a thing. If the fight is worth fighting then everything, including total annihilation with nukes, should be on the table. This is especially true if our civilization as we know it is at stake. I believe it is.

Obama has taken nukes completely off the table. That was naive and foolish. It has made us less safe. Nuking Japan saved lives and as you point out they are now a close ally.

Obama should tell the Taliban what Regan told the Russians (fat chance):
"We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immortality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom, because to save our own skins we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one." Now, let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war. But there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace, and you can have it in the next second. Surrender."

My generation (I'm 49) would do well to listen to yours. Thanks for your service and please continue to comment.

BikerBard said...

Thanks, Sark. Your knowledge of the English language is amazing and superior to all the regulars here. Now 'splain possessive pronouns to us. LOL!

Liberal POV said...

HD

Why are we in Afghanistan? Who's the enemy? Are we there to suppress Muslim extremism? Do we civilized Americans win the hearts of people many living a life style close to that of the 1800s by brut force as the Russians did? How do you bomb people living without most modern world amenities back a hundred years?
How do we keep the war from widening to Pakistan or Pakistan with Nuclear weapons falling to extremist?

I don't think you have grasp of the geography or history of that part of the world.

I'm just glad we don't have you war mongering Know Nothing in charge.
Bush Cheney blew our opportunities in Afghanistan by trying to get control of Iraq oil.

Sarkazein said...

BB-

Have you tried Google for a spelling bee or grammar Blog site?
You know, there are people out there that will help you. Or are you waiting for Obama-care?

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Because Obama says it's a "war of necessity".

The terrorist and those that harbor them.

Hearts don't matter, liberty does.

With nukes.

Ask Obama, he's the one who said he was willing to bomb Pakistan.

Hope that helps.

Sarkazein said...

NYT just announced a $500M grant to one of AL Gore's companies. Our tax money being paid to Gore for his early Obama endorsement. Capitalism is NOT getting rich from government grants. Especially when Gore lobbies for the laws to pass on his financial behalf. Soros and Gore have been paid off with our tax money big time. Chicago politics as usual. What sleeze bags. The lowest form of politicians now control the country.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Hearts don't matter, liberty does.

With nukes."

HD if we don't have support from the local Afghans we cannot win.

Again I don't think you have grasp of the geography or history of that part of the world.

Are you suggesting we commit genocide in Afghanistan to protect Afghanistan from evil radical extremist? Remember the famous quote from Viet Nam " We had to destroy the village to save the village"
Would Nuclear weapons not be genocide on a industrialized scale?

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

I am saying one thing. Win.

Liberal POV said...

WWII Vet

Let me say a few thing about your generation.

You have my greatest respect. You saw real terrorism and what can happen to the world when mad men have control of military power.

No one in your generation escaped the pain and suffering of that war. We had rationing of gas, sugar and many other items. Most all young men were in the military and everyone had a family member or class mate killed.

People all over Europe men, women and children were targets on nightly bombing runs by both sides.
Young people had no future at that moment. The war consumed everything.

The Allied political leaders of the time did not exploit that fear but down played it. People of this country and Europe showed amazing courage.

Thank you for your service!
Political disagreements here are with my respect.

Sarkazein said...

The open minded liberals are described in this article.
Stretch Pelosi worries about conservative protestors.

http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/11/03/news/20091103_front_206757.txt

DC said...

You Obamamaniacs love to say his main accomplishment is to restore our image in the world. And why is that so great? What has it gotten so far? Obama asked Iran and Korea to stop building nukes. They are still building them. He asked Russia and China to help and they said no. He asked China and India to cut back on pollution and they said no. He demanded the Israelis stop building settlements and they have not. He demanded the Palestinians quit firing rockets and they haven’t. He demanded Honduras restore the illegal president and they ignored him. French president Sarkozy says Obama is a joke.

Kissing up to others is as effective as if Liberal POV would start kissing up to us just to make us like him.

Liberal POV said...

DC said...

My attempt here it to apply logic and reason and force you conservative hate addicts out of your comfort zones.
Terms like hate addicts, Know Nothings,lazy thinkers, Fox News Rush Groupies have enough truth and sting that you may try to prove me wrong and in doing so learn something new.
My goal is not to be your friend but I don't want you as my ememy either.

Blogger and HD know I will try to nail them on Conservative myths, urban ledgends and half truths anytime I can. That's pretty easy as most conservative propaganda gets recycled over and over.

BikerBard said...

Sark:
The point IS, is that you were caught in your own smugness and can't accept that fact. It's OK - it will be our little secret! LOL!

Blogger said...

POV do you really think you are applying logic and reason. Really? I predict that years from now you will look back and blush when you realize that mostly you obfuscated.

And, like your mentors in the White House you insult readers' intelligence by believing you can get away with distractions.

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

" like your mentors in the White House you insult readers' intelligence by believing you can get away with distractions."

Is your rebuttal to pretend you have more experience and education so I must be wrong?

Blogger I've seen you use your energy here to fight a more just health care environment in America, using terms like socialism, death panels while you yourself enjoy the wonderful benefit of Medicare and social security.

How do you spell hypocrisy?

Did you have someting I posted you want to challenge or disagree with?

guy faulkes said...

NO, BB, I always said Obama should have given the shoot order to take out the pirates sooner and that he should have taken out the mother ship. I did give him credit for what he did, even if he did procrastinate.

Apparently BB now has added Sark to his list of people that own him and that he has to compulsively oppose. Does anyone know what BB is talking about?

Sarkazein said...

BB-
"Sark:
The point IS, is that you were caught in your own smugness and can't accept that fact. It's OK - it will be our little secret! LOL!"-BB


I have NO idea what you are writing about, do you?

BikerBard said...

Sark:
Now, are you just playing dumb, or are you not playing?

Faux: Now, bark some more! LOL!

PS: You really need to see a shrink about these ownership issues. LOL AGAIN!

Honest Debate said...

C'mon BikerBard, bring something. Anything. Make a point, we'll debate it.