First time visitor? Learn more.

Conquests are rarely one way

by Speranza ( 147 Comments › )
Filed under History, Islam, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, September 11 at October 23rd, 2012 - 8:00 am

The Knish makes some great points here. The most prescient being that religious warfare in the Islamic world is a result of their own imperialism.

by Daniel Greenfield

The British Empire may have made a mess of the Middle East but at least it knew what it wanted to do with it. That is more than can be said for our latest round of aimless fumblings in the region. Our latest project to flip Syria from the Shiite into the Sunni column might at best balance out the time we flipped Iraq from the Sunni into the Shiite column, but that just means we’re moving territories back and forth between two groups that hate us equally.

Our accidental empire was built on 20th century rhetoric that depicted a world caught between the forces of freedom and tyranny. Naturally we were on the side of freedom. And we are still on the side of freedom, even if it’s the freedom of Egyptian and Syrian Islamists to persecute Christians. Over the years our freedom crusade has worn thin and now we are left with the tawdry task of liberating the majority to persecute the minority. A majority that will thank us for it with more terrorist attacks.

The idea that introducing free and open elections to the Muslim world will restructure its governments in alignment with our freedom agenda is naive. More naive than the British thinking that processing a few future Arab monarchs through Sandhurst and Oxford would accomplish the same thing.

The British were at least following in the footsteps of the Romans, even if they forgot that what happened to the Romans was that a religion from one of the annoyingly combative parts of their empire overran them and displaced their native belief systems. Islam seems on track to do to Britain what Judaism and Christianity did to the Roman Empire. But the end result will likely be a lot less civilized.

The Romans assumed that destroying the Jews as a nation, destroying their Temple, massacring large numbers of them and using population replacement to fill the country with foreigners while deporting the native population as slaves would solve their Judean Problem. What they actually did was import two religions into their own cities that were unlinked from temple or nation. The rest is history.

Most religious warfare among Muslims is taking place because of their own past imperialism

Conquests are rarely one way. The invaders may force their culture and laws down the throats of the invaded, but the invaded end up returning the favor. Wahhabi Islam has been working strenuously to purify Islam of all the extras that the non-Arab peoples they incorporated into Islam, particularly the Mongols, added to it. And incorporating the Persians has burdened them with a bulwark of Shiite Islam. Most religious warfare among Muslims is taking place because of their own past imperialism.

It has not yet occurred to the scimitar waving Salafis that their mission of conquest and their dedication to Islamic purity are at odds with one another. That if the Muslim Brotherhood ever succeeded in bringing about Eurabia and Amerabia, that would be the Mongol wars all over again. It also hasn’t occurred to the Saudi bandits that a Muslim America and a Muslim Europe would have as little compunction about taking their oil along with Mecca and Medina as the Ottoman Empire did.

[........]

Americans will make bad Muslims and Muslims will make bad Americans

Americans will make bad Muslims and Muslims will make bad Americans. The only restraint on the use of American power is a cultural tolerance that Islam would sweep away. And the only limit on the abuses of the Arab Street are its tyrants. The fate of Coptic Christians and women in Tahrir Square should be adequate reminders that importing democracy will unleash the worst instincts of the mob without any of the cultural tolerance that prevents Americans from behaving like Egyptian Muslims.

The Muslim conquest of the West is senseless as success would only lead to a new Ottoman Empire and a new Mongol horde carving up the dysfunctional Arab world. In a very literal sense, the efforts of the Arab Muslim world to export Islamic violence and theology is bound to lead to their conquest and destruction one way or another.

But the Western attempts to integrate Islam on any terms are equally senseless. The British Empire began the import of Islam into Britain with its imperialism in the Middle East. H. St. John Philby, Lawrence of Arabia’s successor on the imperial front, converted to Islam (while his son converted to Communism) followed by a number of prominent upper class personalities who had spent time in the Muslim world.

[............]

The great fallacy of the Pax Americana is to think of the Middle East as a problem to be solved

The great fallacy of the Pax Americana is to think of the Middle East as a problem to be solved. In the Cold War, American Middle Eastern policy picked up where the British had left off, finding rulers we could work and propping them up to keep the Commies out of the oil wells. But the Commies are gone now. There are commercial empires in Russia and China looking to dip their trade tentacles everywhere without regard to ideology. And there are developing Islamist empires looking to export their ideology the way that the Commies used to.

It might make a sense of amount of practical sense to stomp on those, but instead we have been aiding and abetting them on the theory that they will bring stability to the region. Because Islam is nothing if not a great stabilizer, as the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq could tell you if they weren’t busy shooting each other.

The tempting illusion that the American policymakers fell into after September 11 was the belief that our practical and moral goals would be one and the same. That we would act as liberators bringing freedom and stability, overthrowing dictators and leaving behind countries that would aligned our way because they were democracies with human rights and fast food franchises. Instead our interests have taken a back seat to the romance of liberation. Like Lawrence of Arabia, we have fallen in love with a myth of liberation while ignoring its tawdry reality.

Very little of what we have done since September 11 has served American interests. And all that we have really been doing is cleaning up old messes by creating new messes. It hasn’t been entirely ineffective.

There is a reason that no major terrorist attack has hit the United States since 9/11 and it isn’t because of our security alerts or our random airline groping programs. The opportunities we created diverted the resources of the terrorists, but not so they couldn’t plan and carry out major terrorist attacks elsewhere. What we did, flawed as it was, did frighten the hell out of our enemies, with its sheer scale. The Saudis aren’t willing to put up the money for a major attack that might lead us to do something damaging to their interests. Neither will any of the other Gulf states. And that just leaves smaller attacks outsourced to third parties who recruit terrorists without proper training or experience.

[..........]

While we expect Muslims to think like us, to want nothing more than peace and prosperity through democracy and freedom, they expect us to think like them. And they know what they would do if they had our power. So they assume that we are doing it to them. We assume that the Muslim world is much less subtle than it is and the Muslim world assumes that we are much more subtle than we are.

Both the Pax Americana and the Pax Islamica are behaving in ways contrary to their interests for ideological reasons. We think that it is in our interest to turn Muslims into Americans. The Arab Spring should have dissuaded us of that. They think that it is in their interest to turn us into Muslims, the Mongols, the Ottoman Empire and Persia should have dissuaded them of that. But neither of us is very good at learning from history.

There is no sense in trying to impose a global order on a billion Muslims for their own good. Their own good is their problem. Our own good is our problem. We are not an empire, nor do we need to act like one except in temporary emergencies. Our interests lie not with a global order, but with our own domestic security.

Empire is the surest path to Islamization

Empire is the surest path to Islamization. It isn’t an empire that we need, certainly not an ideological crusade to liberate Arab Muslims from the cultural consequences of being Arab Muslims. What we need is to return our focus to the nation, to the fundamentally unilateral prerogatives of putting ourselves, our borders, our freedoms and our security first. When we can do that, then we can meet the Islamic empire, as we have met all the other empires, on the right side of a secure border that we can protect and defend against Islamization and the armies of Islam.

Read the rest - The illogic of empire

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

147 Responses to “Conquests are rarely one way”
( jump to bottom )

  1. MikeA
    1 | October 23, 2012 8:04 am

    Disagree on one point. American converts make “good” muslims. They want to bomb and kill infidels and that is considered “good” to muzzies. ;)


  2. 2 | October 23, 2012 8:15 am

    What we need is to return our focus to the nation, to the fundamentally unilateral prerogatives of putting ourselves, our borders, our freedoms and our security first.

    I don’t necessarily disagree, but this sounds a little too isolationist for my taste. We need to be engaged in the world. We need to be able to project power around the world. If we don’t do it someone else will. Who will that be? The Russiand, the Chinese, even some form of Caliphate? It could be all three, but none of that is good news for America. We need to continue to be the preimminant power in the world. Our military should be second to none. We don’t need to cut the military, we need to improve it.


  3. bluliner10
    3 | October 23, 2012 8:25 am

    “They came in Peace” 10-23-1983. Semper Fidelis!

    Some people wonder all their lives if they’ve made a difference. The Marines don’t have that problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    And yes Mr President, the Marines still use bayonets!


  4. 4 | October 23, 2012 8:30 am

    @ bluliner10:

    Yeah, I caught that little fuck-up, too. IIRC, there was even a bayonet charge in Iraq. I don’t recall all the specifics, but when you run out of ammunition you’ve got to do something, and just giving up isn’t an option. The only flaw on my personal rifle is that it lacks a bayonet lug. That’s OK for me. I’m a knife fighter and am trianed to get close to my opponent, so the extra range that a bayonet gives me would be offset by the flexibility in the kinds of attacks I could use, but most people (in or out of the military) aren’t trained at my level.


  5. SciFiGuy
    5 | October 23, 2012 8:34 am

    Obama was a condescending asshat last night. Him and his “horses and Bayonets”. “ships now that we actually land airplanes on” This from someone that cant properly pronounce Corpsman…….. Yea, your really on it there prez…


  6. 6 | October 23, 2012 8:38 am

    SciFiGuy wrote:

    Obama was a condescending asshat last night. Him and his “horses and Bayonets”. “ships now that we actually land airplanes on” This from someone that cant properly pronounce Corpsman…….. Yea, your really on it there prez…

    And we don’t have “ships that sail underwater”. Submarines are BOATS.


  7. 7 | October 23, 2012 8:45 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    Yeah, but a soldier properly trained in bayonet drill will beat you. Nothing like a good bayonet drill.


  8. Speranza
    8 | October 23, 2012 8:49 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I don’t necessarily disagree, but this sounds a little too isolationist for my taste. We need to be engaged in the world. We need to be able to project power around the world.

    There is not contradiction in what he is suggesting and what you are saying.


  9. Speranza
    9 | October 23, 2012 8:51 am

    He mentions Kim Philby in the article. Not too many people know about the Cambridge spies. Philby, Burgess, and Maclean (along with Sir Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross).


  10. ferb123
    10 | October 23, 2012 8:54 am

    http://horsesandbayonets.tumblr.com

    XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD


  11. 11 | October 23, 2012 9:00 am

    @ ferb123:

    Yes, but as already mentioned on this thread, bayonets are still used on th ebattlefield today, so that line, while sounding pretty, was factually wrong. That is the Obama Administration in a nutshell: it sounds pretty, but it is factually wrong.


  12. theoutsider
    12 | October 23, 2012 9:00 am

    Best line of the night. Paraphrasing. “Governor Romney want’s to go back to the foreign policy of the 80′s, the social policy of the 50′s, and the fiscal policy of the 20′s”. I think people will be talking about it thirty years from now.


  13. 13 | October 23, 2012 9:01 am

    @ ferb123:

    Now I look at your link! Funny! :P


  14. 14 | October 23, 2012 9:02 am

    @ theoutsider:

    After eight years of the Romney Administration? The foreign policy in the ’80s, BTW, was a success. Obama wants to use the foreign policy of Neville Chamberlain. We all recall how successful that was.


  15. ferb123
    15 | October 23, 2012 9:05 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ ferb123:
    Yes, but as already mentioned on this thread, bayonets are still used on th ebattlefield today, so that line, while sounding pretty, was factually wrong. That is the Obama Administration in a nutshell: it sounds pretty, but it is factually wrong.

    Obama said military also has fewer horses and bayonets

    I am not an army expert, are you sure this is factually wrong?


  16. 16 | October 23, 2012 9:06 am

    @ theoutsider:

    BTW, the 7-day rolling average ofrom Gallup has Romney at 51% Obama at 45%. Those numbers are holding up. Their methodology looks a lot more sound now that they have quit using the D+7 sampling. How does your man come back from those numbers? He didn’t do it last night, that is for sure. He needed a game-changer win, and instead you come with a nice-sounding sound bite. I’ll call it now: get used to President Romney.


  17. 17 | October 23, 2012 9:07 am

    @ theoutsider:
    Foreign policy of the 80′s when we were strong. Social policy of the 50′s when the family was strong, fiscal policy of the EARLY 20′s when the economy was strong. I see nothing wrong with that at all.


  18. 18 | October 23, 2012 9:08 am

    @ ferb123:
    About the horses no. About bayonets yes. Every ground pounding soldier is issued a bayonet with his rifle and trained in it’s use. That’s one thing that hasn’t changed since firearms became the weapon of choice for the battlefield.


  19. 19 | October 23, 2012 9:11 am

    @ ferb123:

    I don’t know about the Army, but the Marines are all issued bayonets. They go through bayonet training in boot camp. The bayonet is still a tool of warfare. If he actually said fewer, well, that is a slippery word. Define fewer, and we’ll know if he is factually correct. The bayonet has rarely been a decisive weapon on the battlefield, but I’d figure most soldiers would want something for when they run out of ammunition. Personally, I prefer a good knife or tomahawk, but I am more versed in the use of those weapons than the average soldier is likely to be. And you can’t do a bayonet charge with a knife. While rare, those have been a turning point at a number of battles, including the Little Roundtop at Gettysburg.


  20. Speranza
    20 | October 23, 2012 9:11 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ theoutsider:
    After eight years of the Romney Administration? The foreign policy in the ’80s, BTW, was a success. Obama wants to use the foreign policy of Neville Chamberlain. We all recall how successful that was.

    Wilt Chamberlain would have been better.


  21. ferb123
    21 | October 23, 2012 9:12 am

    PaladinPhil wrote:

    @ ferb123:
    About the horses no. About bayonets yes. Every ground pounding soldier is issued a bayonet with his rifle and trained in it’s use. That’s one thing that hasn’t changed since firearms became the weapon of choice for the battlefield.

    hmmm, I didnt know this maybe cause hollywood newer shows modern soldiers with bayonets
    XDDDD


  22. 22 | October 23, 2012 9:12 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    Best line of the night. Paraphrasing. “Governor Romney want’s to go back to the foreign policy of the 80′s, the social policy of the 50′s, and the fiscal policy of the 20′s”. I think people will be talking about it thirty years from now.

    How about when Romney nailed Obama on his not visiting Israel when he was in the Middle East?

    As for the going back to the 80′s Most Americans would take that in a heart beat. I know you view Obama as the light of the world, but the truth is he looked desperate last night.


  23. Speranza
    23 | October 23, 2012 9:13 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ ferb123:
    I don’t know about the Army, but the Marines are all issued bayonets. They go through bayonet training in boot camp. The bayonet is still a tool of warfare. If he actually said fewer, well, that is a slippery word. Define fewer, and we’ll know if he is factually correct. The bayonet has rarely been a decisive weapon on the battlefield, but I’d figure most soldiers would want something for when they run out of ammunition. Personally, I prefer a good knife or tomahawk, but I am more versed in the use of those weapons than the average soldier is likely to be. And you can’t do a bayonet charge with a knife. While rare, those have been a turning point at a number of battles, including the Little Roundtop at Gettysburg.

    In the Civil War until the introduction of repeating rifles, it took around 45 seconds to a minute to load a round into a rifle so you did not have time to constantly reload, so often a bayonet was used.


  24. Speranza
    24 | October 23, 2012 9:13 am

    Rodan wrote:

    How about when Romney nailed Obama on his not visiting Israel when he was in the Middle East?

    As for the going back to the 80′s Most Americans would take that in a heart beat. I know you view Obama as the light of the world, but the truth is he looked desperate last night.

    In the 1980′s Ronald Reagan’s foreign/defense policies lead to the bankruptcy of the U.S.S.R. For the Left, that was not an optimal thing to have happened.


  25. bluliner10
    25 | October 23, 2012 9:15 am

    @ ferb123:
    The Marine Corps issues a bayonet or combat knife to every enlisted Marine in the operational forces. In the early days of OIF, the decision was made to issue all Staff Non-Commissioned and Commissioned Officers a carbine and a pistol, vice just a pistol as the style of fighting had changed. Corpsman were also issued M4′s, whereas they had previously been issued only the sidearm to demonstrate their “non-combatant” status. Whether there are more bayonets now than in 1900 does not matter. Marines still issue and train to bayonet use.


  26. 26 | October 23, 2012 9:16 am

    The truth is both Obama and Romney suck at foreign policy. Its all about kissing Islamic ass and we are the world nonsense. I can’t wait until we have a real American Nationalistic foreign policy.


  27. Speranza
    27 | October 23, 2012 9:17 am

    In today’s battlefield you rarely get close enough to the enemy to use a bayonet on him. Firepower and mobility are what wins battles.


  28. Speranza
    28 | October 23, 2012 9:17 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The truth is both Obama and Romney suck at foreign policy. Its all about kissing Islamic ass and we are the world nonsense. I can’t wait until we have a real American Nationalistic foreign policy.

    Romney sucks less.


  29. 29 | October 23, 2012 9:18 am

    @ Speranza:

    That about sums it up on foreign policy. They believe in this internationalist we are the world nonsense. I thought Romney and Obama would do a duet of John Lennon’s “Imagine”.


  30. Speranza
    30 | October 23, 2012 9:20 am

    Key line -- Romney to Obama (paraphrasing) “I don’t view Russia with any romantic notions and neither do I view Putin the same way. In my presidency Putin will not be confronted by ‘flexibility’ but with ‘back bone’ “.


  31. 31 | October 23, 2012 9:20 am

    @ ferb123:

    If you get all your knowledge of military matters and firearms from hollywood, you will be unfathomably ignorant of the real facts of the situation. Hollywood almost never gets it right on those issues. Evewn where they take steps to try to be historically accurate (like, for example, the movies Gettysburg and Saving Private Ryan), there are still limitations on their accuracy. In the movies, the hero almost never has to reload his firearm, let alone runs out of ammunition. Both are actually common occurances on the battlefield. You will have to reload, and if a firefight run svery long, you will start getting low on ammunition. Lobo could tell you what the basic load of ammunition is, but I think it is something like 300 rounds. That’s ten 30 round magazines. In them movies, they’ll burn that much ammunition in a crowded room, and only kill the people they want to. Reality doesn’t work that way.


  32. theoutsider
    32 | October 23, 2012 9:21 am

    @ Rodan:
    The 80′s, where The Soviet Union existed, that is what the president was trying to point out. They don’t exist anymore. Russia is our ally.


  33. Speranza
    33 | October 23, 2012 9:22 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    That about sums it up on foreign policy. They believe in this internationalist we are the world nonsense. I thought Romney and Obama would do a duet of John Lennon’s “Imagine”.

    One of the phoniest, overrated songs ever. John Lennon singing about “no possessions” when he and Yoko had so much clothing they had to rent a second apartment just to store it.


  34. 34 | October 23, 2012 9:22 am

    @ theoutsider:

    Russia is not our ally nor enemy. For the record I don’t like either Romney nor Obama’s foreign policy. They are both too Internationalist One Worlders types for my taste.


  35. 35 | October 23, 2012 9:23 am

    @ Speranza:

    I saw that line! That is the debate winner, IMHO. Obama can’t deny he offered Putin “flexibility” in his second term. We have him on video making the offer.


  36. 36 | October 23, 2012 9:23 am

    @ Speranza:

    Typical Lefties!


  37. Speranza
    37 | October 23, 2012 9:24 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    The 80′s, where The Soviet Union existed, that is what the president was trying to point out. They don’t exist anymore. Russia is our ally.

    Russia is our ally? Are you on drugs?? Russia is no ally of America or of the former enslaved Warsaw Pact nations. Russia is enabling Iran’s nuclear programs. Even Boris Yeltsin was not an ally of ours. That is like Jerry Ford saying in 1976 that there was no Soviet domination of Poland. Gorbachev was far better.


  38. theoutsider
    38 | October 23, 2012 9:24 am

    @ Rodan:
    @ Rodan:
    Romney basically said I agree with the Other guy. John Bolton and Dan Senor are on suicide watch.


  39. Speranza
    39 | October 23, 2012 9:26 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Typical Lefties!

    He (John Lennon) also abused his eldest son Julian. Look, he was a talented song writer and a good singer that is all.


  40. 40 | October 23, 2012 9:26 am

    ferb123 wrote:

    hmmm, I didnt know this maybe cause hollywood newer shows modern soldiers with bayonets
    XDDDD

    Yeah, like Hollywood is accurate in their portrayals of the military. I was training with bayonets as part of standard field combat doctrine up until I left in 1993. The last time I saw a full combat kit, two years ago, the bayonet was still part of the field gear. It’s a simple effective weapon that will never go out of style.


  41. 41 | October 23, 2012 9:26 am

    @ theoutsider:

    The only good thing was Romney committing to not Nation Build. Other than on Foreign Policy, both Obama and Romney are Wilsonian Progressives. No thanks. I am voting only on economic issues.


  42. bluliner10
    42 | October 23, 2012 9:26 am

    @ Speranza:
    Which battlefield? I spent two years training Combined Arms doctrine at 29 Palms. which is use of aviation, indirect and direct fire to facilitate combat maneuver. Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been quite a few gunfights at ranges 400 meters down to 50 meters. There was hand to hand combat in Fallujah during Op al Fajr. Today’s battlefield, you see the whites of the enemy’s eyes.


  43. 43 | October 23, 2012 9:27 am

    @ theoutsider:

    Russia is neither ally nor enemy, but they are a strategic competitor with their own goals and priorities. Inevitably, there will be some form of conflict between our goals and priorities and their goals and priorities. Iran comes immediately to mind in this regard. While the Russians are being short-sighted (a nuclear Iran is a threat to them as well as Israel and America), they are persuing what they see as their interests by helping Iran’s nuclear program. COnflict doesn’t, of course, mean war, but it is a place where it is better to strongly assert American National Interest. Obama has already promised Putin that he won’t do that.


  44. Speranza
    44 | October 23, 2012 9:27 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    @ Rodan:
    Romney basically said I agree with the Other guy. John Bolton and Dan Senor are on suicide watch.

    No it is Susan Rice on Suicide Watch as she will never be Secretary of State even if Comrade Obama gets re-elected.


  45. 45 | October 23, 2012 9:27 am

    @ Speranza:

    Russia is neither an ally nor an enemy. They are just Russia and out for their own interest. I wish our leaders would be out for our interest instead of this Internationalist Leftist garbage.


  46. Speranza
    46 | October 23, 2012 9:28 am

    bluliner10 wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Which battlefield? I spent two years training Combined Arms doctrine at 29 Palms. which is use of aviation, indirect and direct fire to facilitate combat maneuver. Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been quite a few gunfights at ranges 400 meters down to 50 meters. There was hand to hand combat in Fallujah during Op al Fajr. Today’s battlefield, you see the whites of the enemy’s eyes.

    I guess I should have said excepting urban battlefields.


  47. Buckeye Abroad
    47 | October 23, 2012 9:29 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I don’t know about the Army, but the Marines are all issued bayonets. They go through bayonet training in boot camp.

    Same with the Army. Even the REMFs go through bayonet training and get issued one when they deploy.

    I didn’t watch the debate last night, but from the pics I caught this morning, O looked like a whipped dog despite the evil eye routine. Thoughts?


  48. 48 | October 23, 2012 9:30 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I wish our leaders promoted our national interest. Instead Obama and Romney are all about this International community garbage. Both parties fail on foreign policy. I am voting for Romney only on Economic/Fiscal issues.


  49. ferb123
    49 | October 23, 2012 9:31 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    but do soldiers really use bayonett when they are out of ammu?
    I thought they would rather use a knife.


  50. huckfunn
    50 | October 23, 2012 9:33 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Speranza:

    I saw that line! That is the debate winner, IMHO. Obama can’t deny he offered Putin “flexibility” in his second term. We have him on video making the offer.

    Here’s the vid. And yes, it was the sweet spot of the debate:


  51. 51 | October 23, 2012 9:34 am

    @ ferb123:
    I would rather use a bayonet. Reach, leverage, and terror. A bayonet mounted on a rifle is essentially a short pike. Besides you don’t always use it to poke people. You are using the entire ensemble. Parrying, slashing, clubbing (butt stroking), and maybe stabbing. 30 guys going full bore is a terrifying sight.


  52. heysoos
    52 | October 23, 2012 9:38 am

    @ PaladinPhil:
    two words…
    Belleau Wood
    the Marines love the bayonet


  53. theoutsider
    53 | October 23, 2012 9:39 am

    @ Rodan:
    I think Romney is still a nation builder. He is looking for more wars, more uprisings, more DEMOCRACY. That’s why I mentioned Bolton and Senor. Those guys are pretty much responsible for what’s going on now.


  54. 54 | October 23, 2012 9:39 am

    @ ferb123:

    I’d say most soldiers would use the bayonet. That is part of their training. I’m not a soldier. I am a martial artist. I have black belts in karate and PFillipino martial arts (arnis), the latter of which is where I get my knife fighting expertise. Only the Marine Corps has an integrate martial arts program in our military, though I’d imagine that people like Special Forces, SEALs, etc. train outside of official channels.


  55. 55 | October 23, 2012 9:45 am

    @ Rodan:

    I say wait and see what actual foreign policy comes out of the Romney Administration before you judge him so harshly. For all his failures, you’d have thought that Obama would have been worse if you’d just listened to his campaign speeches. He was going to close Gitmo, and put KSM on trial in New York, for example. Neither of those happened when the rubber met the road. I think Romney will do fine, because at the end of the day he, unlike Obama, is an American patriot. He won[‘t always make the right decision, probably, but he’ll be motivated to at least try.


  56. huckfunn
    56 | October 23, 2012 9:48 am

    Yay! Marines, knives, bayonets, martial arts. Perfect excuse to run this vid one more time. It’s a hoot!


  57. bluliner10
    57 | October 23, 2012 9:50 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    I also studied Arnis or a form of that known as Puneda while I was in Mindanao. The bayonet is nothing more than a knife with an adapter to attach it to the combat rifle vice the style found on the SKS or AK rifles where it was nothing more than a blade attached to the rifle barrel.


  58. buzzsawmonkey
    58 | October 23, 2012 9:51 am

    Brilliant performance by Romney last night.

    Obama was prepped for the debate to be Yosemite Sam; “Yeeeooooouuuuuu VARMINT! Ah’m a-comin’ t’git yeeoouu, an’ Ah’m a-gonna tear yore ears off cuz yore math don’t add up!”

    Romney…was Bugs Bunny. He kept turning the hollow log so that Yosemite Sam Obama would run out the wrong end, over the cliff. Suddenly—repeatedly—Yosemite Sam Obama looked down and saw there was nothing underneath him, and plummeted.

    Romney was Bugs Bunny. Obama was Yosemite Sam. The cliff was Obama’s economy.


  59. 59 | October 23, 2012 9:55 am

    @ bluliner10:

    Here’s the bayonet you need! It is a true work of art. Of course, it costs a pretty penny, too, but quality knives are not cheap. If my personal rifle had a bayonet lug, this is what I’d have for it.


  60. 60 | October 23, 2012 9:56 am

    @ huckfunn:

    In other words, Romney will not Dance the Poot like Обама does.


  61. buzzsawmonkey
    61 | October 23, 2012 9:57 am

    Rodan wrote:

    I am voting for Romney only on Economic/Fiscal issues.

    Which is what most people are doing—and precisely why Romney spent most of the “foreign policy” time agreeing with Obama.

    Obama was expecting to strongly and stridently defend his actions/inaction in Benghazi and argue various other points. Romney didn’t do that; he ducked, and Obama was flailing so badly without opposition that he brought up the economy in order to have something to swing at. This forced him to acknowledge/defend his economic record, and then Romney moved in for the kill.

    Romney knew that people like those here already have their minds made up. He was going for the Frank Luntz Focus Group “undecided” crowd, who wanted to hear something optimistic and reassuring but wouldn’t know policy if it bit them on the ass. And that’s what he gave them; calm reassurance, closing with optimism—while Obama sounded angry, snarky, juvenile and defensive.

    This was not a debate about facts, but about tone—and Obama lost, big time.


  62. 62 | October 23, 2012 10:02 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I think you are right. We’ll see in seven days what Romney’s and Obama’s scores are in the Gallup poll. Today Romney was at 51% Obama 45% (likely voters). Those numbers are devastating for Team Obama. No one in Romney’s position has ever lost since Gallup started polling. Indeed, Romney is where Obama was four years ago. Obama isn’t quite as bad off as McCain was this time four years ago, but Obama has given up on a lot of the swing states, just as McCain did four years ago. I think we may be about to witness another wave election. I certainly hope so. We’ve got two weeks from today. They are oing to be a long two weeks, but Romney has the momentum.


  63. buzzsawmonkey
    63 | October 23, 2012 10:02 am

    The beauty part is that the proggies are killing themselves with Obama’s “zingers.” NPR replayed Obama’s “bayonet” and “aircraft carrier” comments several times this morning—and he sounded snotty and desperate. They played some of Romney’s lines, and he sounded confident, assured, presidential.

    That’s all Romney wanted; that’s all he needs. He was playing to lock up the extra 5% of “undecided” moron vote, and to shore up his current claim on those immediately to their right by reassuring them that voting for him was OK.

    This guy has been planning this for six years; he just got done flensing Obama in public with a smile on his face at the Al Smith dinner. He knew exactly what he was doing, and the reactive and dull-witted Obama fell right into the trap laid for him.


  64. Speranza
    64 | October 23, 2012 10:06 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    I think Romney is still a nation builder. He is looking for more wars, more uprisings, more DEMOCRACY. That’s why I mentioned Bolton and Senor. Those guys are pretty much responsible for what’s going on now.

    Yeah right ’cause he has nothing better to do with his time then start wars and endanger his re-election.


  65. 65 | October 23, 2012 10:14 am

    @ Speranza:

    Meanwhile, Obama has received the all important Putin, Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinnerjacket endorsements for re-election.


  66. 66 | October 23, 2012 10:17 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    The main thing is that Obama did not do what he needed to do so badly: namely, create a game-changer moment in the debate that could blunt Romney’s momentum. It really doesn’t matter how many gushing editorials Obama gets in the New York Times. The people that read them are going to vote for him anyway. Obama has been at a steady 45% in the Gallup poll forthe past 7 days. That is a terrible place for him to be. Those are awful re-elect numbers. He can take that and lose in a landslide. And there is almost no way for him to pull to over 50% from there. Not in two weeks.


  67. 67 | October 23, 2012 10:18 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    He may be an American Patriot, but he has bought into the Wilsonian Progressive nonsense.


  68. theoutsider
    68 | October 23, 2012 10:19 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    Bull Shit, Carolina Girl. Can we get a real endorsment?


  69. 69 | October 23, 2012 10:23 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Romney did the right thing in the debate. I just wish he offered an alternative foreign policy based on nation interests and not Leftist help the Muzzies BS.


  70. 70 | October 23, 2012 10:23 am

    @ theoutsider:

    I dunno, can you? Russell Crowe doesn’t really count as real, either. BTW, what do you think of the Gallup numbers? Starting to look real, aren’t they? Sweet!


  71. 71 | October 23, 2012 10:27 am

    @ theoutsider:

    You talk to me, you take out the profanity. Got it?


  72. 72 | October 23, 2012 10:29 am

    On Horses, Bayonets, and ships. Now that I see the President’s comments in context, I can see how ignorant he is. Does he really think an aircraft carrier doesn’t need support ships? They call it a carrier battle group for a reason, Mr. President. Does he think that carriers can do all the work? We have a piracy problem off th eHorn of Africa. Sure would be nice to have some heavy gunboats to patrol those waters, wouldn’t it? A carrier task force is a bit of a heavy hitter for that. As Bugs would say, what a maroon!


  73. 73 | October 23, 2012 10:29 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    And all four of those dictators say they hope Obama is re-elected. Tells me all I need to know about Obama -- they’ll have “flexibility.”


  74. buzzsawmonkey
    74 | October 23, 2012 10:31 am

    Rodan wrote:

    He may be an American Patriot, but he has bought into the Wilsonian Progressive nonsense.

    Possibly. Likely, even. But the economy will keep him a little busy for foreign adventures for quite some time.

    In the meantime, he knew enough to not argue major policy questions last night. He not only flummoxed Obama by not fighting him on a number of policy questions, thereby robbing Obama of much of his preparation and forcing Obama to bring up the economy he’s been running from, he got Obama to agree that strength abroad was based on a strong economy, and then Obama, trying to defend his own record, sounded desperate.

    That’s tactical, not foreign policy. Watching Romney sucker Obama like that makes me fairly confident that he’s not about to go nation-building any time soon. He even took a slam at the Left when he discussed the Islamic world, because he mentioned the Muslim world’s mistreatment of women, which the Left ignores.

    Romney ended his closing statement with some allusion to “peace.” I don’t like “peace” talk—too hippy-dippy—but to the “undecided” voters worried about jobs and used to grumbling about “the war,” hearing a confident Romney talking about “peace” was far more attractive than a snarky, blustering Obama talking about “we ended (not “won”) the war.”

    Romney’s looking to win—and to do that he’s locking up the “undecideds.”


  75. 75 | October 23, 2012 10:34 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Rasmussen has Romney 50%, Obama 46% today. He’s looking more like the Gallup numbers these days. And Obama is at -16.


  76. buzzsawmonkey
    76 | October 23, 2012 10:34 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    As Bugs would say, what a maroon!

    I see you agree with my #58.


  77. 77 | October 23, 2012 10:35 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    He really could have sewn them up had he said its not worth spending one penny on the Islamic world. he would have won that walking away. Americans are tired of the Mideast and want nothing to do with those people (except Israel.)


  78. 78 | October 23, 2012 10:35 am

    I guess if one wants a sneering condescending prick for president instead of a measured, logical and sincere professional, then I guess Obama’s your man.

    I’m sure someone already brought this up, but just last week they dedicated the “Horse Soldiers” statue at Ground Zero in honor of the Special Forces that were the tip of the spear in Afghanistan in ’01. It depicts a Special Forces member, on horseback (and he was likely packing a bayonet).


  79. 79 | October 23, 2012 10:35 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    In CBS’s focus group of undecideds after the debate in Steubenville, Ohio -- 2 voted Obama won debate; 6 voted Romney. Yep. Undecideds are now pulling for Romney in bigger and bigger numbers.


  80. 80 | October 23, 2012 10:36 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    As a Navy Man, I can only say the following about Обама’s shitty comments about the Navy: [Deleted]


  81. 81 | October 23, 2012 10:36 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Loved it! I thought it was spot on.


  82. 82 | October 23, 2012 10:37 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    As Bugs would say, what a maroon!

    …what a nincowpoop!


  83. Speranza
    83 | October 23, 2012 10:39 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Rasmussen has Romney 50%, Obama 46% today. He’s looking more like the Gallup numbers these days. And Obama is at -16.

    I am getting more and more optimistic by the day. Still I want to know who these people are who after four years of Obama are “undecided’?


  84. 84 | October 23, 2012 10:40 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Sounds to me like a whole lot of rehearsed soundbites about the military. He’s apparently not worried about the military vote -- since he’s doing everything he can to suppress it.


  85. Speranza
    85 | October 23, 2012 10:41 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Meanwhile, Obama has received the all important Putin, Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinnerjacket endorsements for re-election.

    Don’t forget the Muslim Brotherhood vote.


  86. buzzsawmonkey
    86 | October 23, 2012 10:41 am

    Rodan wrote:

    He really could have sewn them up had he said its not worth spending one penny on the Islamic world. he would have won that walking away. Americans are tired of the Mideast and want nothing to do with those people (except Israel.)

    He could have. But then what he’d be doing is dealing with a round of “Romney hates Arabs! Romney hates Muslims! Romney’s a bigot—and what about his being Mormon, anyway, speaking of “bigotry?” And what about our oil supplies in the Middle East?” types of articles.

    That’s not what Romney wants to do in the last two weeks of the campaign. He’s giving as few openings to Obama and his media as possible. He’s not going to say, “screw that whole area of the world” because it doesn’t project confidence or Presidential strength. He’s projecting, “We’re Americans, fuck yeah! and we can handle anything including some squabbling Arabs.”

    What will he actually do? Who knows? The objective is to get rid of Obama; the rest gets sorted out later.


  87. 87 | October 23, 2012 10:41 am

    @ MacDuff:

    I disagreed with Romney’s foreign policy but he looked like the President. Obama was trying to draw him into a fight and Romney didn’t give it to him.


  88. heysoos
    88 | October 23, 2012 10:41 am

    a hearty endorsement by Snoop Dog is worth millions of votes for Romney IMO


  89. theoutsider
    89 | October 23, 2012 10:42 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    The last time you talked to me, it was a profanity. Thought it was only fair.


  90. Speranza
    90 | October 23, 2012 10:43 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    He erred on the side of caution and while I would have preferred him not agreeing with Obama so much he was content to let Obama and his immature facial expressions speak for themselves. Governor Romney came across presidential, reasonable, focused and in command of the facts. Unlike the lemming we ran last time -- this guy wants to win.


  91. 91 | October 23, 2012 10:43 am

    @ Speranza:

    I don’t know that they’re all that “undecided” -- I think they’re claiming to be, but I don’t really believe that 4% of the country hasn’t made up it’s mind. If I were polled, I’d tell the pollster (unless it was Raz) that I was voting for Obama since I don’t want to get into it on the phone like last time. I told a California pollster that called I was voting for McCain and the second statement out of their mouths was “are you not voting for Obama because of his race?”

    If pollsters call people and they don’t want to get into it, say you’re undecided and then at least you might not get attacked. I’ll tell you what I completely don’t believe -- that supposedly 5% of McCain voters who were white and over 55 are defecting to Obama -- especially since Romney is leading Obama with a higher percentage of white males over 55 than McCain did.


  92. Speranza
    92 | October 23, 2012 10:44 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Carolina Girl:
    The last time you talked to me, it was a profanity. Thought it was only fair.

    What are we in the 4th grade?


  93. 93 | October 23, 2012 10:44 am

    @ theoutsider:

    Really? What comment was that? I don’t recall ever asking you for anything but a link. Which you never provided.


  94. Speranza
    94 | October 23, 2012 10:44 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    I don’t know that they’re all that “undecided” — I think they’re claiming to be, but I don’t really believe that 4% of the country hasn’t made up it’s mind. If I were polled, I’d tell the pollster (unless it was Raz) that I was voting for Obama since I don’t want to get into it on the phone like last time. I told a California pollster that called I was voting for McCain and the second statement out of their mouths was “are you not voting for Obama because of his race?”

    I would say I am voting GOP and then hang up. I don’t want them to skewer the polls any further.


  95. 95 | October 23, 2012 10:45 am

    Macker wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:

    As a Navy Man, I can only say the following about Обама’s shitty comments about the Navy: [Deleted]

    He spoke, condescendingly, of “ships that sail underwater”. Submarines are classified as boats, regardless of their size. He seemed to single out the Navy as being, somehow, “antiquated” last night and, as a Navy veteran, he did something I thought impossible -- he pissed me off more than he already has over the last four years.


  96. 96 | October 23, 2012 10:46 am

    Speranza wrote:

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Carolina Girl:
    The last time you talked to me, it was a profanity. Thought it was only fair.

    What are we in the 4th grade?

    Perhaps theoutsider is in the 4th grade!


  97. Speranza
    97 | October 23, 2012 10:46 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    I’ll tell you what I completely don’t believe — that supposedly 5% of McCain voters who were white and over 55 are defecting to Obama — especially since Romney is leading Obama with a higher percentage of white males over 55 than McCain did.

    The only McCain voters going for Obama this time around are Shiplord Kirel, Kragar, and the sahib of Culver City aka the estimable Charles Foster Johnson.


  98. 98 | October 23, 2012 10:47 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Since my vile comment was [Deleted], I can only imagine the words our Fighting Sailors, Men and Women, have for this Effeminate.


  99. 99 | October 23, 2012 10:47 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Yeah, the Gallup numbers are looking more and more solid. You may recall, no less a hard-rightwinger than Bob Beckel said that if those numbers were accurate it was all over. He sounded so enthusiastic when he said it, too! Those numbers have held up for some time, so I think they are not simply a fluctuation of the statistics. I think they represent a serious shift, and that is bad news for Obama. If those numbers are real, he is going to lose this election.


  100. Speranza
    100 | October 23, 2012 10:48 am

    I think even Peggy Noonan is voting for Romney.


  101. 101 | October 23, 2012 10:48 am

    @ Speranza:

    Yep -- and I’m not all that convinced that they didn’t vote for Obama in 2008.


  102. Speranza
    102 | October 23, 2012 10:50 am

    SciFiGuy wrote:

    Obama was a condescending asshat last night. Him and his “horses and Bayonets”. “ships now that we actually land airplanes on” This from someone that cant properly pronounce Corpsman…….. Yea, your really on it there prez…

    Obama knows nothing about history or military history (except maybe “peoples wars” and even those he probably has drawn the wrong conclusions from).


  103. Speranza
    103 | October 23, 2012 10:50 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Yep — and I’m not all that convinced that they didn’t vote for Obama in 2008.

    Hell, even McCain probably did not vote for McCain in 2008.


  104. buzzsawmonkey
    104 | October 23, 2012 10:51 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Unlike the lemming we ran last time — this guy wants to win.

    This is a guy who got a Harvard MBA and a Harvard law degree at the same time, then went on to make a huge personal fortune for himself. He didn’t get his degrees on affirmative action.

    He knows how to plan, to strategize, to play things close to the vest, and to let his opponent defeat himself.

    He’s been planning for this run for six years, and has had four years to study the guy he wants to defeat.

    He is smarter, and faster, and a quicker on-his-feet thinker, than the lazy, chooming, teleprompter-reliant, let-me-sleep-on-it bubble boy he’s running against.

    We just saw him eviscerate his opponent with a smile a the Al Smith dinner—using lines he could never have gotten away with in a straight-on debate—and his opponent had to smile and take it. It not only made his opponent’s speech and delivery look flat; it psyched him out for this last debate.

    Romney’s been running a campaign of Inigo Montoya virtuosity in these debates.


  105. Speranza
    105 | October 23, 2012 10:55 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    He is the real deal and a legitimate candidate to be POTUS. Obama was always way underqualified to be president.


  106. bluliner10
    106 | October 23, 2012 10:55 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Romney’s been running a campaign of Inigo Montoya virtuosity in these debates.
    What he fought him left-handed????


  107. 107 | October 23, 2012 10:56 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    To Обама: “Hello. My name is Mitt Romney. You killed our country. Prepare to DIE!


  108. buzzsawmonkey
    108 | October 23, 2012 10:56 am

    SciFiGuy wrote:

    Obama was a condescending asshat last night. Him and his “horses and Bayonets”. “ships now that we actually land airplanes on” This from someone that cant properly pronounce Corpsman…….. Yea, your really on it there prez…

    NPR was replaying that this morning as if it actually helped Obama. I don’t think they quite realize how bad he sounds.

    I thought Romney did well last night, but when I heard NPR replaying clips of both, it was really obvious how well Romney did, and how much Obama debased himself.


  109. buzzsawmonkey
    109 | October 23, 2012 10:57 am

    bluliner10 wrote:

    What he fought him left-handed????

    And then revealed that he was not, in fact, left-handed.


  110. 110 | October 23, 2012 10:57 am

    Stocks taking a big hit this morning…


  111. 111 | October 23, 2012 10:59 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ Speranza:
    That about sums it up on foreign policy. They believe in this internationalist we are the world nonsense. I thought Romney and Obama would do a duet of John Lennon’s “Imagine”.

    One of the phoniest, overrated songs ever. John Lennon singing about “no possessions” when he and Yoko had so much clothing they had to rent a second apartment just to store it.

    Exactly.

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ theoutsider:
    You talk to me, you take out the profanity. Got it?

    Good for you Carolina Girl!

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Russia is neither an ally nor an enemy. They are just Russia and out for their own interest. I wish our leaders would be out for our interest instead of this Internationalist Leftist garbage.

    You got that right.

    Russia would have been our ally if we had not bombed the Serbs and intervened by supporting the “color revolutions” in Russia’s near abroad.


  112. 112 | October 23, 2012 11:01 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Carolina Girl wrote:
    @ Iron Fist:
    Rasmussen has Romney 50%, Obama 46% today. He’s looking more like the Gallup numbers these days. And Obama is at -16.

    I am getting more and more optimistic by the day. Still I want to know who these people are who after four years of Obama are “undecided’?

    Either they’re Ron Paul followers, or they’re so ignorant that they don’t even know where their polling place is.


  113. huckfunn
    113 | October 23, 2012 11:03 am

    Some pretty good debate analysis from across the pond.
    Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden’s smile.

    Romney won the third presidential debate – and how he did it was encapsulated in a single exchange. The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks. The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.

    But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan). More importantly, this was one example of many in which the President insulted, patronised and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for?


  114. 114 | October 23, 2012 11:03 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    Stocks taking a big hit this morning…

    Bad earnings.


  115. 115 | October 23, 2012 11:04 am

    @ 1389AD:

    I disagree. Russia would have always been a strategic competitor, not an ally nor (quite) an enemy. What is in the global interests of Russia is not necessarily what is in the Global interests of the United States. It is nice that we are not enemies any more, but Russia will alway s be a competitor. They have being a Great Power as a national goal, and it is really not in our interest for there to be anything that can equal us on the world stage. Obama thinks otherwise, which is why he assured Putin that he’d have greater “flexibility” to accomodate him if he is re-elected.


  116. Speranza
    116 | October 23, 2012 11:05 am

    1389AD wrote:

    Either they’re Ron Paul followers, or they’re so ignorant that they don’t even know where their polling place is.

    Maybe they have been sleeping in a cave for four years.


  117. buzzsawmonkey
    117 | October 23, 2012 11:08 am

    A lot of the “undecideds” are people who reflexively vote for Democrats and against Republicans; this time they do not want to vote for Obama, but they feel bad voting against him, and have been struggling over whether or not they will vote for a Republican when normally they vote against the Republican just because of the party name.

    In short, these are people who know in their gut where their interest lies, but have not yet given themselves permission to do what they want to do. That is what “undecideds” are, in many cases.

    Romney, by his demeanor, has been inviting them to give themselves permission to vote for him.


  118. 118 | October 23, 2012 11:09 am

    @ 1389AD:

    That’s not a bad theory -- that they might be Ron Paul people who haven’t decided -- although I pretty much assumed those guys would go with Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket.


  119. 119 | October 23, 2012 11:09 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ 1389AD:
    I disagree. Russia would have always been a strategic competitor, not an ally nor (quite) an enemy. What is in the global interests of Russia is not necessarily what is in the Global interests of the United States. It is nice that we are not enemies any more, but Russia will alway s be a competitor. They have being a Great Power as a national goal, and it is really not in our interest for there to be anything that can equal us on the world stage. Obama thinks otherwise, which is why he assured Putin that he’d have greater “flexibility” to accomodate him if he is re-elected.

    Unless we want to be a worldwide empire (which is not in the interests of the American people, nor is it sustainable for any length of time), it is no harm to us that Russia and China continue to be great powers on the other side of the planet. It would be in our long-term strategic interests to ally with Russia against the Islamic powers.


  120. 120 | October 23, 2012 11:10 am

    @ Speranza:

    His daughter is all over Twitter trying to re-establish her conservative cred now that her hero may be taking a tumble. Not being very successful at it, frankly.


  121. 121 | October 23, 2012 11:13 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    A lot of the “undecideds” are people who reflexively vote for Democrats and against Republicans; this time they do not want to vote for Obama, but they feel bad voting against him, and have been struggling over whether or not they will vote for a Republican when normally they vote against the Republican just because of the party name.
    In short, these are people who know in their gut where their interest lies, but have not yet given themselves permission to do what they want to do. That is what “undecideds” are, in many cases.
    Romney, by his demeanor, has been inviting them to give themselves permission to vote for him.

    Good point.


  122. 122 | October 23, 2012 11:13 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Mehgan’s tits don’t have any conservative cred to regain. She’s so done if Romney wins. Why pay attention to her? Sarah Palin is a lot more relevant.


  123. 123 | October 23, 2012 11:13 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    His daughter is all over Twitter trying to re-establish her conservative cred now that her hero may be taking a tumble. Not being very successful at it, frankly.

    She’s an airhead.


  124. 124 | October 23, 2012 11:15 am

    Speranza wrote:

    In today’s battlefield you rarely get close enough to the enemy to use a bayonet on him. Firepower and mobility are what wins battles.

    That’s true in general, but not in close-quarters urban warfare, nor in the jungle.


  125. 125 | October 23, 2012 11:16 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Carolina Girl:
    Mehgan’s tits don’t have any conservative cred to regain. She’s so done if Romney wins. Why pay attention to her? Sarah Palin is a lot more relevant.

    Real conservative women who want to be taken seriously refrain from posing scantily clad for photos.


  126. Speranza
    126 | October 23, 2012 11:18 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    His daughter is all over Twitter trying to re-establish her conservative cred now that her hero may be taking a tumble. Not being very successful at it, frankly.

    Meghan McCain and her boobs have this tremendous desire to be noticed.


  127. Speranza
    127 | October 23, 2012 11:20 am

    1389AD wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    In today’s battlefield you rarely get close enough to the enemy to use a bayonet on him. Firepower and mobility are what wins battles.

    That’s true in general, but not in close-quarters urban warfare, nor in the jungle.

    I fixed my comment to mention urban warfare. In June, 1941 Germany used 750,000 horses (to haul supplies) during their invasion of the USSR (Operation Barbarossa).


  128. buzzsawmonkey
    128 | October 23, 2012 11:21 am

    Speranza wrote:

    In June, 1941 Germany used 750,000 horses (to haul supplies) during their invasion of the USSR (Operation Barbarossa).

    And, unlike Jeeps, you can eat the horses if the supply lines are cut and the rations run short.


  129. 129 | October 23, 2012 11:23 am

    @ Speranza:

    I think she realizes her gig at MSLSD is over if Romney elected. They’ll have no use for a “conservative” to be against conservatives when they can have all liberal hands on deck to rail against Romney without her help.


  130. Speranza
    130 | October 23, 2012 11:24 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    I think she realizes her gig at MSLSD is over if Romney elected. They’ll have no use for a “conservative” to be against conservatives when they can have all liberal hands on deck to rail against Romney without her help.

    Is Ron Reagan, Jr. still at PMSNBC?


  131. Speranza
    131 | October 23, 2012 11:27 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    In June, 1941 Germany used 750,000 horses (to haul supplies) during their invasion of the USSR (Operation Barbarossa).

    And, unlike Jeeps, you can eat the horses if the supply lines are cut and the rations run short.

    There are so many myths about the Germans and their “efficiency” in World War II. The fact of the matter is that they were lousy at logistics (they did not have enough motor transport or spare parts for the vehicles that they had as many were of captured French and Czech origin when they invaded the Soviet Union). They also diluted/scattered their manpower (400,000 soldiers in Norway, 7 divisions in Holland, 250,000 men in the Balkans, 100,000 men or so in North Africa).


  132. 132 | October 23, 2012 11:29 am

    @ 1389AD:

    It would be in our long-term strategic interests to ally with Russia against the Islamic powers.

    I agree with you 100%! The problem is both parties have subscribed to Leftist Pro-Islamic foreign policy ideas. Neither Obama nor Romney care about America’s interests. They are both about pleasing the Dar al Islam.

    As for Russia, there is among Republican elites a very Russophobic attitude. Part of it is hatred of Slavs another is hatred of Orthodox Christians or Christians in general.


  133. 133 | October 23, 2012 11:29 am

    @ Speranza:

    I never really see anything about him. Apparently the libturd crowd at Joe Schmoe’s show on MSNBC booed a little 9-year-old girl who said she was supporting Romney. Let’s hear it for the tolerant left.


  134. 134 | October 23, 2012 11:31 am

    @ 1389AD:

    Russia would have been our ally if we had not bombed the Serbs and intervened by supporting the “color revolutions” in Russia’s near abroad.

    I agree with that. We should respect Russia’s sphere and make them respect our sphere.


  135. buzzsawmonkey
    135 | October 23, 2012 11:31 am

    Speranza wrote:

    There are so many myths about the Germans and their “efficiency” in World War II. The fact of the matter is that they were lousy at logistics

    And, of course, they pulled rail stock from supplying the Eastern Front to make sure that the trains kept rolling to Chelmno, Sobibor, Treblinka and Birkenau.


  136. Speranza
    136 | October 23, 2012 11:31 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    I never really see anything about him. Apparently the libturd crowd at Joe Schmoe’s show on MSNBC booed a little 9-year-old girl who said she was supporting Romney. Let’s hear it for the tolerant left.

    Of course “Mourning” (lol) Joe probably said nothing.


  137. Speranza
    137 | October 23, 2012 11:32 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    There are so many myths about the Germans and their “efficiency” in World War II. The fact of the matter is that they were lousy at logistics

    And, of course, they pulled rail stock from supplying the Eastern Front to make sure that the trains kept rolling to Chelmno, Sobibor, Treblinka and Birkenau.

    Genocide always came first with the Nazis and the war against the Jews was one that Hitler was determined to win, and he did.


  138. citizen_q
    139 | October 23, 2012 11:41 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Neat!


  139. 140 | October 23, 2012 11:41 am

    @ Speranza:

    No but Mika, daughter of one of the worst NSA’s in history, was all about selfish conservatives talking all about money -- and she was referring to a BABY.


  140. 141 | October 23, 2012 11:43 am

    New thread.


  141. huckfunn
    142 | October 23, 2012 11:47 am

    Speranza wrote:

    There are so many myths about the Germans and their “efficiency” in World War II. The fact of the matter is that they were lousy at logistics (they did not have enough motor transport or spare parts for the vehicles that they had as many were of captured French and Czech origin when they invaded the Soviet Union).

    Also, much of the German supply train was horse-drawn which gave them built-in inefficiency to their logistics. At least if you were starving and freezing in the East, you could eat the horse. The broken down out of gas truck not so much.


  142. Speranza
    143 | October 23, 2012 11:59 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    Also, much of the German supply train was horse-drawn which gave them built-in inefficiency to their logistics. At least if you were starving and freezing in the East, you could eat the horse. The broken down out of gas truck not so much.

    The only thing that could have facilitated a German victory in the East would have been an implosion of the USSR precipitated by the death of Joseph Stalin.


  143. Speranza
    144 | October 23, 2012 12:01 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    No but Mika, daughter of one of the worst NSA’s in history, was all about selfish conservatives talking all about money — and she was referring to a BABY.

    She (Mika B.) is an air head par excellence.


  144. Alberta Oil Peon
    145 | October 23, 2012 12:01 pm

    @ 1389AD:
    Bingo!

    And likewise with China and India. America should work with all three of those powers to divvy up the islamic world into spheres of influence, with the understanding that none of the powers give the muslims in their sphere any real power or independence, because, frankly, muslims cannot govern themselves.


  145. Alberta Oil Peon
    146 | October 23, 2012 12:05 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    You gotta love GPS-equipped tractors!


  146. Will Consult for Food
    147 | October 23, 2012 2:14 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    1389AD wrote:

    Either they’re Ron Paul followers, or they’re so ignorant that they don’t even know where their polling place is.

    Maybe they have been sleeping in a cave for four years.

    They are the people whose goal in life is to get home quickly from their job bagging groceries so they don’t miss a minute of the latest Honey Boo Boo episode.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David