Political Revolution

[vyo476]

i would much rather have the government we have now than a socialist government that obama want to throw on us!

The government you have now is trending dangerously close to National Socialism - the latest idea of the government buying up $250 million in private bank stocks is reminiscent, albeit in a much more passive manner, of the fascist economic model.

and his partner lied 16 in the debate with palin... 16!

Do you have a source for this?

what will he tell us when he's VP?

Perhaps he'll declare victory in a foreign invasion that will lead into five years of bloody occupation. It's passe, I know, but one must respect one's forebears.

why should cut military spending?

I don't think we should, personally; I think a redistribution of military spending - away from missile creation, which is more or less useless right now - would behoove the government greatly.

the way i see it, this country is bush's house... when those ****ers ran OUR planes into OUR buildings, bush stepped up and did what he had to do to protect his house.

By declaring that those responsible would be held accountable then, years later, saying that Bin Laden is no longer a priority?

has anything happened since then? NO!

Somehow I doubt that the stream of corpses coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan would agree - if they still possessed the faculties to do so.

The golden rule of guerrilla warfare: Strike fast where you are strongest and the enemy is weakest. Right now, they are strongest and we are weakest in more or less the same place - Iraq and Afghanistan. In that sense, our conflagrations in the Middle East have succeeded in taking the attention off of the American homeland and putting it onto the Middle East.

Our tactic, however, is not an end, but a perpetuation. So long as they're there, dying, we don't have to face attacks here. As soon as they come home - regardless of the situation in Iraq that follows - the focus will shift again as where we're weakest shifts. Unless a more lasting solution is found to the problem, the only way to prevent more terrorism from striking the American heartland is to keep troops in the Middle East, fighting and dying, indefinitely.

unlike when clinton was in office and they ran into our ship and blew a whole in the isde of it, they were just seeing how hard they could push before we pushed back! our dem president then didnt have the balls to step up to the plate.

Our Dem President favored negotiation over aggression, where possible. Clinton, through the Camp David Accords, made groundbreaking progress with the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Seems that that old fight got a lot worse again under Bush, didn't it?

Anyway, there's no one tried and true method for dealing with an aggressive enemy. Consider Czech history for a moment:

In 1618, the Czechs told their Austro-Hungarian conquerors exactly where they could stick it by throwing a couple of imperial officials out of the Prague Castle. The resulting Thirty Years' War destroyed most of the Czech nation. Should they have been more cautious?

Perhaps - but attempting to learn that lesson a few hundred years too late, the Czechs opted for caution when Hitler came knocking - and they wound up getting mercilessly conquered.

Yet again reversing their feelings on how to treat aggressive outside forces, the Czechs attempted to show their defiance towards the Soviet Union during "Prague Spring" in 1968. The result: the Soviets invaded.

The moral of this trip down history's Memory Lane? No one policy towards foreign aggression is the right one. Situations are subjective.

i remember when the planes hit the towers and all ages were inlisting in the military to go kill some mother f-ers, but here we are 7 years later and dont seem to remember why we are over there in the first place...

I know several people who enlisted (or reenlisted) in the wake of 9/11. Not a single one of them said that it was to "kill some mother f-ers." They used words like, "duty," "responsibility," and "moral obligation" - words that they believed in.

the one thing i dont agree with in the war is that we shouldnt be rebuilding their towns... they sure didnt rebuild our towers!

A shopkeeper in Fallujah who just had all of his windows blown out and most of his merchandise - his livelihood - ruined by a car bomb didn't have anything to do with 9/11. You're seeking retribution against a very few guilty parties hiding in a sea of innocent bystanders who are just plain unlucky enough to live in Iraq.

thats just my two cents take it how you want it. but mark my words... obama is the last person we want in charge of this country... its said that the world will end with politcal chaios... obama might as well tatoo 666 on his forhead!

I can think of a lot of people who would make far worse choices for the office of chief executive of the United States than Barack Obama, who is at the least a previously-elected senator and an educated, worldly man.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

the DEM would vote for a monkey if that was the nomination.

In case you missed it, they ARE!

And you can get your own HERE

 

[Pandora]

The only way I have ever heard the term Half breed is when talking about a part Native American mixed with White American

I am still called that at work by non poltical correct friends, well and pepper belly , taco bender, beaner, greaser

I consider them kinda cool. the conservatives who hate political correctness at work talk to each other like that all the time.


though I would not be comfortable with the N word or anything anti jewish the rest seems fine to me, and I am the one they are calling it

 

[BigRob]

T
I don't think we should, personally; I think a redistribution of military spending - away from missile creation, which is more or less useless right now - would behoove the government greatly.

I think missile defense needs to be a priority for the United States right now. I think we are seeing a lot of non-state actors engaging in warfare at the moment, but I think the rise of China and the reemergence of Russia will shift us back to a more conventional state on state warfare model.

Depending on who your enemy is and where, missiles and missile defense become critical in my view. China already has demonstrated the ability to shoot down satellites, and as rouge states like Iran and North Korea obtain nuclear weapons, and as we face a nuclear Pakistan becoming a failed state, missile defense becomes much more critical in my view.

Further, once Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have already openly stated that they are going to obtain weapons of their own. In an unstable nuclear world, it makes a lot of sense to me to have the ability to shoot down incoming missiles. Iran, North Korea and others are all pursuing new missile technology, we need to ensure that we stay ahead of the curve on being able to defend against this.

This is not to say that Iran is going to do a Russian style attack with MIRV's on our East Coast, but to prevent other states from proliferation, I think it behooves us to be able to offer a viable missile shield.

Our Dem President favored negotiation over aggression, where possible. Clinton, through the Camp David Accords, made groundbreaking progress with the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Seems that that old fight got a lot worse again under Bush, didn't it?

I am not sure it is entirely fair to blame Bush for the problems that resurfaced in this conflict. While Bush certainly did not take a proactive role in problem solving for both sides, it remains debatable what impact that really had on the process in my view.

I can think of a lot of people who would make far worse choices for the office of chief executive of the United States than Barack Obama, who is at the least a previously-elected senator and an educated, worldly man.

Foreign policy is my biggest concern with Obama. I think he got in wrong on the surge, he got in wrong with Georgia, and most importantly he got it wrong with Pakistan. I also think he got it wrong on Iran with sitting down for talks and then backing off to preconditions. Preconditions are a must, mostly all we want to sit down is a suspension of enrichment while talks are underway. Otherwise, we simply are handing Iran more time, which is really all they need at this point.

Bush is mostly doing what Obama promised to do in Pakistan and it is openly pushing Pakistan more quickly to the brink of collapse. Bin Laden would be nice to capture yes, but are we willing to risk a collapse of nuclear Pakistan to "maybe" get that? I for one am not.

If Pakistan collapses, it will have far reaching terrible consequences. I know the argument can be made that the Bush policy towards Pakistan has not been the best, but the policy Obama seems to be espousing follows the Bush line, which I think will lead us right to disaster in Pakistan.