First time visitor? Learn more.

The four horesemen of the American foreign policy apocalypse

by Speranza ( 101 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Cold War, Egypt, Fatah, Hamas, Hezballah, History, Iran, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinians, Syria at January 14th, 2013 - 7:00 am

Barack Obama as president, John Kerry as Secretary of State, Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, and John Brennan as C.I.A. chief,  Barry Rubin thinks that John Brennan wins the prize as being the worst of the four. You can take your pick but as the cliche goes, the fish stinks from the head down. I wish Susan Rice did not withdraw her candidacy for Secretary of State.

by Barry Rubin

I did a lot of soul-searching before writing my latest article, “After the Fall: What Do You Do When You Conclude America is (Temporarily or Permanently) Kaput?” Of course, I believed every word of it and have done so for a while. But would it depress readers too much? Would it just be too grim?Maybe U.S. policy will just muddle through the next four years and beyond without any disasters. Perhaps the world will be spared big crises. Possibly the fact that there isn’t some single big superpower enemy seeking world domination will keep things contained.Perhaps that is true. Yet within hours after its publication I concluded that I hadn’t been too pessimistic. The cause of that reaction is the breaking story that not only will Senator John Kerry be the new secretary of state; that not only will the equally reprehensible former Senator Chuck Hagel be secretary of defense, but that John Brennan, the president’s counterterrorism advisor, will become CIA chief.
About two years ago I joked that if Kerry would become secretary of state it was time to think about heading for that fallout shelter in New Zealand. This trio in power—which along with Obama himself could be called the four horseman of the Apocalypse for U.S. foreign policy—might require an inter-stellar journey.[.......]
You can read elsewhere details about these three guys. Here I will merely summarize the two basic problems:
–Their ideas and views are horrible. This is especially so on Middle Eastern issues but how good are they on anything else? [.......]  Far worse is that they are pro-Islamist as well as being dim-witted about U.S. interests in a way no foreign policy team has been in the century since America walked onto the world stage.Brennan is no less than the father of the pro-Islamist policy. What Obama is saying is this: My policy of backing Islamists has worked so well, including in Egypt, that we need to do even more! All those analogies to 1930s’ appeasement are an understatement. Nobody in the British leadership said, “I have a great idea. Let’s help fascist regimes take power and then they’ll be our friends and become more moderate!  [.......]

–They are all stupid people. Some friends said I shouldn’t write this because it is a subjective judgment and sounds mean-spirited. But honest, it’s true. Nobody would ever say that their predecessors—Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and David Petraeus—were not intelligent and accomplished. But these guys are simply not in that category. Smart people can make bad judgments; regular people with common sense often make bad judgments less often. But stupid, arrogant people with terrible ideas are a disaster.

 

Brennan’s only life accomplishment has been to propose backing radical Islamists. As a reward he isn’t just being made head of intelligence for the Middle East but for the whole world! [.......] All he has is a proximity to Obama and a very bad policy concept. What’s especially ironic here is that by now the Islamist policy has clearly failed and a lot of people are having second thoughts.

 

With Brennan running the CIA, though, do you think there will be critical intelligence evaluations of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, or even Hamas?  [.......]   Can we have confidence about U.S. policy toward Iran?

To get some insight into his thinking, consider the incident in which a left-wing reporter, forgetting there were people listening, reminded Brennan that in an earlier private conversation he admitted favoring engagement not only with the Lebanese terrorist group Hizballah but also the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.  [........]
Kerry, of course, was the most energetic backer of sponsoring Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad before the revolt began. Now he will be the most energetic backer of putting the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Syria. Here is a man who once generalized about American soldiers in Vietnam as being baby-killers and torturers. Such things certainly happened but Kerry made the blame collective, except for himself of course.As for Hagel, suffice it to say that the embarrassing quotes and actions from him in the past–including his opposition to sanctions against Iran–fueled a response to his proposed nomination so strong that the administration had to back down for a while.
What would have happened if President Harry Truman turned over American defense, diplomacy, and intelligence in 1946 to those who said that Stalin wanted peace and that Communist rule in Central Europe was a good thing?
[.......]

I apologize for being so pessimistic but look at the cast of characters? When it comes to Obama Administration foreign policy’s damage on the world and on U.S. interests one can only say, like the great singer Al Jolson, folks, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

To get a sense of his thinking, check out Brennan’s article, [.......] Here’s the conclusion:

“If the United States actually demonstrates that it will work to help advance rather than thwart Iranian interests, the course of Iranian politics as well as the future of U.S.-Iranian relations could be forever altered.”
The Obama Administration followed this advice during its first two years with the result being total failure. The theme of the 2008 article carries over to his view of the Muslim Brotherhood. If the United States shows it is friendly, helpful, and does not oppose their taking power then revolutionary Islamists will become moderate.
For example, he also proposes a U.S. policy, “to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system….” This step, he suggests, will reduce “the influence of violent extremists in the organization.”
Of course, Hizballah does not need to stage terrorist attacks if it holds state power! Terrorism is only a tactic to seize control of countries.  [.......] Yet putting them in power does not increase stability, improve the lives of people, or benefit U.S. interests. If al-Qaeda, for example, overthrew the Iraqi or Saudi government you would see a sharp decline in terrorist attacks! If the Muslim Brotherhood rules Egypt, Tunisia, or Syria it doesn’t need to send suicide bombers into the marketplaces.
The same by the way would apply to anywhere else in the world. If Communist rebels took power in Latin American or Asian countries you wouldn’t find them hanging out in the jungles raiding isolated villages.In Brennan’s terms, that means the problem would be solved. Instead, the correct response is parallel to Winston Churchill’s point in his 1946 Fulton, Missouri, speech: “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.”
This is what Brennan—and the Obama Administration—fails to understand regarding this point. The danger is not terrorism but a dangerous revolutionary movement that becomes even more dangerous if it controls entire states, their resources, and their military forces.
Read the rest - Noxious nominations: the four horsemen of the American foreign policy apocalypse

 

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!

101 Responses to “The four horesemen of the American foreign policy apocalypse”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | January 14, 2013 7:33 am

    If the United States actually demonstrates that it will work to help advance rather than thwart Iranian interests, the course of Iranian politics as well as the future of U.S.-Iranian relations could be forever altered.

    That is truly frightening. Either he is terminally naieve, or he is an American traitor. Has he forgotten all the “Death to America” stuff? That Iranian policy fo rthe last 30 years has been 100% counter to US interests? That Iran was supplying al Qaeda in Iraq with advanced weaponry, including anti-armor mines? All of this is common knowledge. Perhaps Brennan is one of those low information voters. As such, he isn’t capable of being head of the CIA. It is, of course, worse if he actually knows all this (and I’d say that he does). That’d make him a traitor. But being a traitor isn’t a bar to advancement in the Obama Administration. John Kerry is going to be Sec State, after all.


  2. Fritz Katz
    2 | January 14, 2013 7:35 am

    I disagree with Rubin’s assesment of the people in charge of our world. I think he’s being just too kind:

    Smart people can make bad judgments; regular people with common sense often make bad judgments less often. But stupid, arrogant people with terrible ideas are a disaster.

    They are not “stupid”. They are evil. They are deliberately exacerbating every situation for the express purpose making things worse. They want to maximise human suffering, death, destruction, and misery on all sides.

    The ideas of stupid people are ineffectual. Sometimes they make mistakes which turn out for the better rather than the worse.

    Evil people are very effective.

    The stupid people think the evil people make disasterous decisions because they are “just in over their heads“. They project their own stupidity in assigning motivations to the evil person.

    In the cosmic contest between evil and stupid — evil wins every time.


  3. waldensianspirit
    3 | January 14, 2013 7:38 am

    They’ve been behind this the whole time. Apparently the white commie proggies have their negro on a very tight leash


  4. unclassifiable
    4 | January 14, 2013 7:41 am

    This article along with the “The GOP’s Next Problem” have lead me to conclude that nothing but a reckoning of the eventual outcome will allow us to focus on a balanced approach of aligning our national interest with our national creed if you will.

    There is much to discuss here but one thing IMHO is to abandon the British “Great Game” philosophy. While many here on this blog can point to the “nation building” issue as a bad approach (while forgetting that is exactly what the Allies did to Germany and Japan after WWII) one can at least argue that this does not have the sinister taint of the back room intrigue that this administration has engaged in — and is an anathema to our own beliefs of a government open and subservient to its citizens (yeah, yeah, another pipe dream, I know).


  5. waldensianspirit
    5 | January 14, 2013 7:56 am

    unclassifiable wrote:

    Germany and Japan

    were beat. Fuhrer and Emperor exposed. The muzzies have been empowered every where since with their god well intacted. Nothing to rebuild


  6. 6 | January 14, 2013 8:00 am

    @ Fritz Katz:

    Exactly! People mistakenly think Obama is a bumbler because his policies have (from our perspective) negative results. I think he wants these negative results. They are part of his fundamental transformation of America into a Third World nation. As such, these three nominations make perfect sense. He wants people in place who will encourage the Iranians to get atomic weapons, who will incurage the spread of Islamism,and who will weaken the United States abroad. Those are some of his primary goals.


  7. 7 | January 14, 2013 8:03 am

    The shear number of sources for outrage isn this administration almost precludes the success of any of the individual outrages because the opposition is portrayed “obstructing virtually everything” -- clearly this is a planned strategy. In short, if everything is outrageous, then nothing is outrageous.

    Obama’s far more interested in discrediting the Republican Party than he is in surrounding himself with competence, and by keeping the level of controversy at a fever pitch he’s effectively casting the Republicans as a party of perpetual naysayers. As a bonus, it keeps the spotlight on the controversy du jour and off of the growing list of administration failures.

    Alas, fully aided and abetted by the Entertainment Information Complex, it’s working extraordinarily well.


  8. waldensianspirit
    8 | January 14, 2013 8:03 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    Obama wants to unleash the muslim hordes against Israel


  9. heysoos
    9 | January 14, 2013 8:04 am

    a timely essay…VDH covers alot of ground here
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337578/our-sort-war-terror-victor-davis-hanson?pg=2


  10. 10 | January 14, 2013 8:07 am

    @ heysoos:

    I was going to post that link, but got distracted with work! It is a good essay, but VDH is just about always spot on.


  11. unclassifiable
    11 | January 14, 2013 8:07 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    So are you implying that we needed to do more damage to Baghdad and Basra in order for it to work?


  12. unclassifiable
    12 | January 14, 2013 8:09 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    And, of course not allow them to establish Sharia law? Maybe outlaw Islam itself?


  13. waldensianspirit
    13 | January 14, 2013 8:09 am

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:
    So are you implying that we needed to do more damage to Baghdad and Basra in order for it to work?

    I’m saying out right that the US military cannot win unless they can identify enemy commanders and their military installations and kill and demolish them utterly


  14. waldensianspirit
    14 | January 14, 2013 8:12 am

    @ unclassifiable:
    Nazi law was gone. And Shintoism exposed


  15. waldensianspirit
    15 | January 14, 2013 8:14 am

    When Bush declared victory I knew it was lost


  16. rain of lead
    16 | January 14, 2013 8:14 am

    mornin ya’ll
    jeez it’s cold this morning
    where’s that global warming I had yesterday?


  17. unclassifiable
    17 | January 14, 2013 8:16 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    So would a valid conclusion be that “nation building” works but only if the military objectives are aligned to create the environment to do it?


  18. unclassifiable
    18 | January 14, 2013 8:20 am

    Be back in a few.


  19. 19 | January 14, 2013 8:22 am

    @ unclassifiable:

    It depends on the society. Islamic nations can’t be redeemed.


  20. 20 | January 14, 2013 8:25 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    You also need to kill the soldiers in th efield. Simply killing commanders is not enough. You need to thoroughly devistate and demoralize the enemy. Sherman’s march through Georgia should be out model for dealing with the Islamic enemy.


  21. 21 | January 14, 2013 8:27 am

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:
    So are you implying that we needed to do more damage to Baghdad and Basra in order for it to work?

    We should have installed a secular dictator.


  22. 22 | January 14, 2013 8:27 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:
    You also need to kill the soldiers in th efield. Simply killing commanders is not enough. You need to thoroughly devistate and demoralize the enemy. Sherman’s march through Georgia should be out model for dealing with the Islamic enemy.

    I’m reading about the Mongols. They clearly got it.


  23. 23 | January 14, 2013 8:29 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ unclassifiable:

    It depends on the society. Islamic nations can’t be redeemed.

    They cannot, bloodthirsty zealotry is, in fact, Islam’s reformation. Our blindness to that fact is the seed of our recent failures.


  24. 24 | January 14, 2013 8:32 am

    @ Rodan:

    They can be, but they need to be made un-Islamic. We didn’t rebuild Nazi Germany. There was an intense campaign of de-Nazification that went on in tandem with our rebuilding of their society. We didn’t do that in Iraq and Afghanistan. We needed to. That is where Bush failed, not in the initial impulse to war. Iraq was a perfect strategic target. It was fairly easily conquered, but then we chose to lose the peace. And, of course, Obama chose to snatch total defeat out of the jaws of partial victory. We could have still had bases in Iraq, and been ready to take the war to Iran, but Obama threw that away.


  25. 25 | January 14, 2013 8:32 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Islam is a totalitarian system like Communism and Nazism.


  26. 26 | January 14, 2013 8:38 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    They can be, but they need to be made un-Islamic.

    We should have given the country over to the Chaldean Christians, destroy all the Mosques and kill off the Imams. What Cortez did in his liberation of Mexico from Aztec tyranny should have been our blue print.

    That is where Bush failed, not in the initial impulse to war.

    Bush listed to some academic eggheads who told him everyone wants freedom. What BS it was and many of those advisers like Dan Senor have ties to Saudi Arabia. Coincidence? I think not. The best for the US to do is have nothing to do with the Mideast. No trade and no travel.


  27. 27 | January 14, 2013 8:39 am

    @ Rodan:

    Yes, if you study military history, the formula for winning is fairly clear. It changes somewhat from war to war, but defeating the enemy not only in the field but at home is a clear path to victory everywhere it has been tried. That is how the Spartans won the Pelloponesian war, that is how we won World War Two, that is how the North defeated the South in the Civil War. YOu have to destroy the enemy’s will to resist. Fail to do that, and you get a stalemate like Korea or a loss like Vietnam. Our leadership chose to ignore these lessons of history, and so we are losing the current war. From Bush I blame a core of softness. He thought we could find a gentler way. From Obama, though, it is clear that he has no intention of winning. He has even said as much.


  28. unclassifiable
    28 | January 14, 2013 8:42 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:
    You also need to kill the soldiers in th efield. Simply killing commanders is not enough. You need to thoroughly devistate and demoralize the enemy. Sherman’s march through Georgia should be out model for dealing with the Islamic enemy.

    I’m reading about the Mongols. They clearly got it.

    Are we Mongols? I think not. Clearly if you are advocating this as policy then we are heading towards Mongolian status.


  29. heysoos
    29 | January 14, 2013 8:44 am

    Islam will win in the end…I don’t think the west has the will to do what it takes..Muslims will keep killing til the end of time…maybe they will defeat themselves but no guts, no glory


  30. unclassifiable
    30 | January 14, 2013 8:48 am

    So when we go to war let’s make sure that we have the will and the wherewithal to break both the enemy’s capacity and will for war.

    I have no problem with that.

    But even in this we have to make sure that this is in line with our nation’s character.

    I know that last line is problematic (given how this administration seems to be trying to change it for the worst IMHO).


  31. unclassifiable
    31 | January 14, 2013 8:53 am

    @ Rodan:

    What would the world have been like if we had taken the first Arab oil embargo and made it permanent — unilaterally.

    I think part of the issue is that the eggheads looked at the American public’s reaction and concluded that it was politically untenable to do it. We have been paying the price ever since.


  32. 32 | January 14, 2013 8:53 am

    @ unclassifiable:

    Are we Mongols? I think not. Clearly if you are advocating this as policy then we are heading towards Mongolian status.

    When dealing with savages, you must treat them as such. We are not dealing with civilized people. If we are not prepared to take it to the Mongol level, then do not go to war with these savages.


  33. 33 | January 14, 2013 8:53 am

    unclassifiable wrote:

    But even in this we have to make sure that this is in line with our nation’s character.

    Do you consider Sherman and Grant to not have acted in line with “America’s character”? That would have to include Lincoln, who stood four-square behind these brutal generals. Or was it OK to do tothe South what you find unacceptible to do to Muslims?


  34. 34 | January 14, 2013 8:54 am

    heysoos wrote:

    Islam will win in the end…I don’t think the west has the will to do what it takes..Muslims will keep killing til the end of time…maybe they will defeat themselves but no guts, no glory

    The West doesn’t have the will to wipe its own butt any more, much less save itself.


  35. 35 | January 14, 2013 8:55 am

    @ unclassifiable:

    Agree, the eggheads are killing this country. I’m sick and tired of every Republican except rand Paul repeating whatever the AEI crew says we should do. Plus do not underestimate the amount of Islamic money and infiltration in the US government in both parties.


  36. 36 | January 14, 2013 9:02 am

    heysoos wrote:

    Islam will win in the end…I don’t think the west has the will to do what it takes..Muslims will keep killing til the end of time…maybe they will defeat themselves but no guts, no glory

    I think the Russians or Chinese will wipe the floor with the Muzz.


  37. 37 | January 14, 2013 9:07 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    From Bush I blame a core of softness. He thought we could find a gentler way. From Obama, though, it is clear that he has no intention of winning. He has even said as much.

    Yup!


  38. buzzsawmonkey
    38 | January 14, 2013 9:13 am

    Comments also welcomed at PJM:

    Brennan Loves the Moors
    —apologies to the Clancy Brothers Tommy Makem and “Brennan on the Moor”

    It’s of an Obama nominee this story we will tell
    He’s the clueless John Brennan, and in Washington he dwells
    He likes to say “Inshallah,” and he talks about “al-Quds”
    As Director of the CIA he’d be a major dud

    Because Brennan loves the Moors
    Brennan loves the Moors
    How on earth can he defend us, when Brennan loves the Moors?

    When working at the CIA (Clinton was Prez back then)
    Brennan helped nix the Agency’s plans to kill bin Laden
    So he helped bring 9/11 and helped the Twin Towers fall
    While his boss Obama now spikes the bin Laden football

    Because Brennan loves the Moors
    Brennan loves the Moors
    How on earth can he defend us, when Brennan loves the Moors?

    When told of the twenty percent recidivism rate
    Of released Gitmo detainees, he said, “We’re doing great!
    Fifty percent is common for civilian criminals
    So turning jihadis loose is an OK judgment call.”

    Because Brennan loves the Moors
    Brennan loves the Moors
    How on earth can he defend us, when Brennan loves the Moors?

    He was a driving force behind—or so it has been said—
    The push to try in civil court Khalid Sheikh Mohammed;
    The self-confessed murderer was a prisoner of war
    But Brennan urged his status be summarily ignored

    Because Brennan loves the Moors
    Brennan loves the Moors
    How on earth can he defend us, when Brennan loves the Moors?

    Intelligence gath’ring John Brennan has contrived to thwart;
    Though wanting to try Khalid Mohammed in civilian court,
    He has urged that jihadis be killed rather than captured
    So interrogators are unable to take down their words

    Because Brennan loves the Moors
    Brennan loves the Moors
    How on earth can he defend us, when Brennan loves the Moors?

    Now Brennan’s nominated to direct the CIA
    If it should happen he’s confirmed, then he can give full play
    To the policies that he’s endorsed time and then time again
    To favor terrorists over guarding Americans

    Because Brennan loves the Moors
    Brennan loves the Moors
    How on earth can he defend us, when Brennan loves the Moors?


  39. Speranza
    39 | January 14, 2013 9:25 am

    unclassifiable wrote:

    While many here on this blog can point to the “nation building” issue as a bad approach (while forgetting that is exactly what the Allies did to Germany and Japan after WWII)

    Japan and Germany were homogeneous nations which were either Western (Germany ) or had industrial trappings of Westernization (Japan). They were not tribal.


  40. unclassifiable
    40 | January 14, 2013 9:26 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    No I think Grant and Sherman acted in full comportment with the American character. They broke both the will and the capacity for the South to wage war. What they did not do is to maim and torture Southerners for their own pleasure or to display their desecrated bodies to show the power of the North. I think Lincoln was very eager to make a lasting honorable peace with the South before he was assassinated.

    I would want nothing more or less for those in the Muslim world who wish to bring war to us.


  41. citizen_q
    41 | January 14, 2013 9:31 am

    O/T

    Journal News gun permit map used by burglars to target White Plains home?

    A White Plains residence pinpointed on a controversial handgun permit database was burglarized Saturday, and the burglars’ target was the homeowner’s gun safe.

    At least two burglars broke into a home on Davis Avenue at 9:30 p.m. Saturday but were unsuccessful in an attempt to open the safe, which contained legally owned weapons, according to a law enforcement source. One suspect was taken into custody, the source said.

    I’ll bet those journalists feel vindicated that the people took matters into their own hands to try and disarm the 70 year old victim who being a legal firearm owner was definitely a menace to society. /


  42. heysoos
    42 | January 14, 2013 9:33 am

    Rodan wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    Islam will win in the end…I don’t think the west has the will to do what it takes..Muslims will keep killing til the end of time…maybe they will defeat themselves but no guts, no glory

    I think the Russians or Chinese will wipe the floor with the Muzz.

    maybe, but they would more than likely take the fight to them….fighting Islam around the world is a massive full time job…watch France get their asses handed to them


  43. 43 | January 14, 2013 9:34 am

    @ citizen_q:

    You add a sarc tag, but that is exactly what I believe these “journalists” wanted to do. They wanted these people to be targeted by people trying to steal their guns. “See, you thought having a gun made you safer? Now I’ve painted a target on you!”


  44. unclassifiable
    44 | January 14, 2013 9:37 am

    @ unclassifiable:

    But furthermore we have to understand if this country has the capacity to do so. Coldwarrior mentioned on another thread the pendulum nature of the American electorate. Given the last two presidential elections one can conclude that a large portion of the public does not.

    This is problematic. It is one thing to suffer a Pearl Harbor. It is another thing to see a city vaporized or a region left uninhabitable by various WMD’s. But this may be our reality if we do not have the will to be vigilant.

    Japan thought war was honorable. A curious thing about WMD’s and drones is that there is not really any honor in doing battle against a foe who uses these. It’s has been a new age of warfare and our foreign policy is still showing signs of trying to reconcile this. I in no way think that a blog is going to resolve this in one thread. But resolve it we must because until we get some consensus of opinion it will be very hard to displace this administration’s approach before another horrible event occurrs.


  45. citizen_q
    45 | January 14, 2013 9:38 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    Yeah, the sarc tag did not quite convey the contempt I hold these journalists / self-appointed judges in.


  46. buzzsawmonkey
    46 | January 14, 2013 9:40 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    You add a sarc tag, but that is exactly what I believe these “journalists” wanted to do. They wanted these people to be targeted by people trying to steal their guns. “See, you thought having a gun made you safer? Now I’ve painted a target on you!”

    Yes: there was the quadruple objective of violating the privacy of the gun owners; of stigmatizing them to their neighbors; of making them the targets of criminals; and of laying the blame upon them if a gun stolen from one of them was subsequently used in a crime.


  47. unclassifiable
    47 | January 14, 2013 9:40 am

    @ unclassifiable:

    Now late getting ready for work. Good thread. Keep on going and maybe I can join back later.


  48. Speranza
    48 | January 14, 2013 9:45 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    unclassifiable wrote:

    But even in this we have to make sure that this is in line with our nation’s character.

    Do you consider Sherman and Grant to not have acted in line with “America’s character”? That would have to include Lincoln, who stood four-square behind these brutal generals. Or was it OK to do tothe South what you find unacceptible to do to Muslims?

    War is brutal. Grant did not execute prisoners or civilians. He won the war and gave the South an honorable peace. In fact the sight of blood made Grant literally sick. Sherman offered Johnston an even more generous peace which Stanton and Johnson rejected.


  49. 49 | January 14, 2013 9:48 am

    This is an interesting statistic:

    Honest Americans Bought Enough Guns in November and December to Outfit the Entire Chinese and Indian Armies

    I will say again, these people aren’t buying these guns to turn them over just because Emperor Barack Hussein I and the Democrats have decreed that they do so.


  50. 50 | January 14, 2013 9:52 am

    @ heysoos:

    The Russians have defeated the Muzz on multiple occasions, so has China.


  51. Speranza
    51 | January 14, 2013 9:59 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ heysoos:

    The Russians have defeated the Muzz on multiple occasions, so has China.

    Neither Russia or China are encumbered by a false sentimentality.


  52. 52 | January 14, 2013 10:02 am

    @ unclassifiable:

    The problem is neither political party has the answer. The Democrat think appeasement is the answer. Republicans think being nice and nation building is the answer.


  53. 53 | January 14, 2013 10:03 am

    @ Speranza:

    They look out for their self interests. Something we have not done since the Reagan era. It’s all about the Global community now.


  54. RIX
    54 | January 14, 2013 10:13 am

    Here is a man who once generalized about American soldiers in Vietnam as being baby-killers and tortu

    Good morning. All four are bad, but Kerry makes my teeth itch.


  55. Speranza
    55 | January 14, 2013 10:13 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:

    They look out for their self interests. Something we have not done since the Reagan era. It’s all about the Global community now.

    I agree. They also make no apologies.


  56. Speranza
    56 | January 14, 2013 10:14 am

    RIX wrote:

    Here is a man who once generalized about American soldiers in Vietnam as being baby-killers and torture

    Good morning. All four are bad, but Kerry makes my teeth itch.

    Obama is the bess of the four -- now that is scary!


  57. RIX
    57 | January 14, 2013 10:20 am

    Speranza wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    Here is a man who once generalized about American soldiers in Vietnam as being baby-killers and torture

    Good morning. All four are bad, but Kerry makes my teeth itch.

    Obama is the bess of the four — now that is scary!

    That is scary.


  58. 58 | January 14, 2013 10:22 am

    RIX wrote:

    Good morning. All four are bad, but Kerry makes my teeth itch.

    Are you sure you didn’t get some bad acid? :D


  59. RIX
    59 | January 14, 2013 10:25 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    Good morning. All four are bad, but Kerry makes my teeth itch.

    Are you sure you didn’t get some bad acid?

    No, it was quality stuff./


  60. 60 | January 14, 2013 10:26 am

    Hey, this is a good report on the results of gun control in Australia. Many of you have probably seen it, but for those who haven’t, it’s with the time. Perfectly suitable for work…..and prolific distribution.


  61. 61 | January 14, 2013 10:28 am

    @ Speranza:

    War is brutal. There is no helping that. I was not condemning Sherman or Grant. Instead, I was holding them up as a model for how our war against Islam should be conducted. We have done nothing resembling that. Colin Powell insisted that “we broke it; we bought it” in Iraq. Why he should think this is so is beyond me, but he neglected to first utterly defeat the enemy. Our rebuilding of Germany and Japan was contingent on first utterly defeating them militarily. The Bush Administration thought we could skip that part ad get right to the re-building. They bought into the myth that the Iraqi people would love and value freedom if it were given to them. Subsequent events proved this false, but a rational view of history would have told him that it simply was not so. A substantial minority of the America people would gladly trade their freedom and independence for the “freedom” from responsibility for themselves.


  62. coldwarrior
    62 | January 14, 2013 10:33 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    Are you sure you didn’t get some bad acid? :D

    is there such a thing?

    (shuffles off to listen to some dead…)


  63. buzzsawmonkey
    63 | January 14, 2013 10:39 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    Are you sure you didn’t get some bad acid?

    Rodan wants everyone to have some bad-ass Cid.


  64. 64 | January 14, 2013 10:39 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    In Germany and Japan, we exercised veto-power over the type of governments that were installed, something we failed to do in either Afghanistan or Iraq. That failure doomed both countries and was comparable to having reinstalled the Emperor in Japan and the Nazis in Germany.


  65. 65 | January 14, 2013 10:41 am

    A lovely weekend in Beijing…

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/14/pollution-highlights-price-china-is-paying-for-rapid-development/

    That looks thick even for Beijing.


  66. 66 | January 14, 2013 10:42 am

    @ MacDuff:

    Exactly. The Bush Administration failed completely to learn from the successful history in World War Two and its aftermath. Had we done what is necessary, Iraq and even Afghanistan might have eventually developed into civilized nations. That is exceedingly unlikely to happen now. Both are Shari’ia based societies, and the history of Shari’ia based societies is very grim.


  67. 67 | January 14, 2013 10:44 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I hate Powell.


  68. 68 | January 14, 2013 10:44 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    De-Islamization would have been the answer.


  69. buzzsawmonkey
    69 | January 14, 2013 10:46 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    The Bush Administration failed completely to learn from the successful history in World War Two and its aftermath.

    As I’ve observed on other occasions, Bush did not prosecute the war intelligently in his manner of selling the objectives to the society, taking control of the war-information narrative, building public involvement and morale, etc. He not merely failed to follow the successful history of WWII in this regard—he and his administration actively avoided it.

    It’s no surprise, then, that when the American military handed him victory in spite of himself, he didn’t know what to do with it.


  70. coldwarrior
    70 | January 14, 2013 10:46 am

    MacDuff wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    In Germany and Japan, we exercised veto-power over the type of governments that were installed, something we failed to do in either Afghanistan or Iraq. That failure doomed both countries and was comparable to having reinstalled the Emperor in Japan and the Nazis in Germany.

    japan was honorable, germany was christian.


  71. AZfederalist
    71 | January 14, 2013 10:52 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:

    De-Islamization would have been the answer.

    We certainly did not allow emperor worship to continue in Japan, we allowed them to keep the emperor, but only as a figurehead. In the Middle East, we allowed them to actually install that which was the basis for the attacks on the US. Absolutely unbelievably stupid.


  72. coldwarrior
    72 | January 14, 2013 10:53 am

    @ Rodan:

    makin beans and rice for puti’s b’day dinner.

    using yer mom’s recipe.


  73. 73 | January 14, 2013 10:53 am

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    makin beans and rice for puti’s b’day dinner.
    using yer mom’s recipe.

    Cool!


  74. 74 | January 14, 2013 10:54 am

    @ AZfederalist:

    We should have done like Cortez did in Mexico. Destroy the Mosques and killed the Imams.


  75. 75 | January 14, 2013 10:57 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:

    I hate Powell.

    Powell’s a whiney bitch; we seem to have a lot of whiney bitches in the ranks of General Officer of late.


  76. RIX
    76 | January 14, 2013 10:57 am

    Jesse Jackson was interviewed by Martha MacCallum on FNC
    this morning.
    The Issue is gun crime in Chicago, even with restrictive gun laws.
    He went into full spin saying that the guns come in from outside
    of the city, Jibbidy, jibbidy!


  77. 77 | January 14, 2013 10:59 am

    @ MacDuff:

    He’s a turncoat and has become a concern troll. He loves the attention.


  78. 78 | January 14, 2013 11:01 am

    @ RIX:

    As if the coke dealers are buying local product. If they can smuggle drugs, they can smuggle guns, and if the demand is there they will. Jackson is as anti-civil rights as the Ku Klux Klan.


  79. 79 | January 14, 2013 11:03 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    He’s a turncoat and has become a concern troll. He loves eh attention.

    Translation: Pussy.


  80. RIX
    80 | January 14, 2013 11:08 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ RIX:

    As if the coke dealers are buying local product. If they can smuggle drugs, they can smuggle guns, and if the demand is there they will. Jackson is as anti-civil rights as the Ku Klux Klan.

    Jesse is a race hustler & extortionist.
    That is the family business.


  81. 81 | January 14, 2013 11:09 am

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ Rodan:

    makin beans and rice for puti’s b’day dinner.

    using yer mom’s recipe.

    Red beans and rice with andouille is one of my “Big Easy” favorites!


  82. 82 | January 14, 2013 11:10 am

    New Thread.


  83. heysoos
    83 | January 14, 2013 11:13 am

    RIX wrote:

    Jesse Jackson was interviewed by Martha MacCallum on FNC
    this morning.
    The Issue is gun crime in Chicago, even with restrictive gun laws.
    He went into full spin saying that the guns come in from outside
    of the city, Jibbidy, jibbidy!

    go after the gun makers?
    http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=718934


  84. RIX
    84 | January 14, 2013 11:14 am

    It’s a War Zone! More Murders in Chicago in 2012 Than Allied Losses in Afghanistan
    Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, January 13, 2013, 12:24 AM

    More gun laws!


  85. citizen_q
    85 | January 14, 2013 11:14 am

    RIX wrote:

    Jesse is a race hustler & extortionist.
    That is the family business.

    And business has been very good.

    Just ask honest al sharpton. /

    I put al and jesse’s after the fact support for comrade zero to delaying the competition to the family business by keeping him in office.


  86. RIX
    86 | January 14, 2013 11:16 am

    @ heysoos:
    Jesse blames everyone but the actual criminals.
    The yoots are just victims doncha know.


  87. Speranza
    87 | January 14, 2013 11:16 am

    RIX wrote:

    It’s a War Zone! More Murders in Chicago in 2012 Than Allied Losses in Afghanistan
    Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, January 13, 2013, 12:24 AM

    More gun laws!

    Chicago is starting to resemble Detroit.


  88. Speranza
    88 | January 14, 2013 11:18 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Speranza:

    War is brutal. There is no helping that. I was not condemning Sherman or Grant. Instead, I was holding them up as a model for how our war against Islam should be conducted. We have done nothing resembling that. Colin Powell insisted that “we broke it; we bought it” in Iraq. Why he should think this is so is beyond me, but he neglected to first utterly defeat the enemy. Our rebuilding of Germany and Japan was contingent on first utterly defeating them militarily. The Bush Administration thought we could skip that part ad get right to the re-building. They bought into the myth that the Iraqi people would love and value freedom if it were given to them. Subsequent events proved this false, but a rational view of history would have told him that it simply was not so. A substantial minority of the America people would gladly trade their freedom and independence for the “freedom” from responsibility for themselves.

    Powell first and foremost was always a political appointee.


  89. unclassifiable
    89 | January 14, 2013 11:18 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Full disclosure.

    I supported the war in Iraq.

    And I am coming to regret that.

    Experience is a hard teacher.

    That is why I started reading history because I just did not have the intellectual wherewithal to make cogent arguments.

    I do not think I could ever join the war’s opponents. They were just using their actions as a chance to promote their own statist goals.


  90. RIX
    90 | January 14, 2013 11:20 am

    @ Speranza:
    Chicago just gets worse & I hate to see it.


  91. unclassifiable
    91 | January 14, 2013 11:28 am

    One may wonder how a foreign policy thread went to a war thread.

    IMHO one must understand the rationale for war which is the result of foreign policy failure in order to articulate foreign policy.

    For far too long many have advocated a balanced approach — which means turning from our allies towards, well anyone and everyone it seems.

    Others want to base our foreign policy in terms of national interest which is all well and good unless you find yourself dealing with thugs and degenerates. In this case you are no better off than a junky conducting foreign policy with his dealer.

    No easy answers here but I can say categorically turning from Great Britain is just plain dumb despite Piers Morgan and Martin Bashir.


  92. Speranza
    92 | January 14, 2013 12:35 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Chicago just gets worse & I hate to see it.

    I always wanted to visit Chicago.


  93. Speranza
    93 | January 14, 2013 12:36 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    One may wonder how a foreign policy thread went to a war thread.

    Threads are never hard and fast and go off onto side topics. No big deal.


  94. Speranza
    94 | January 14, 2013 12:36 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    I supported the war in Iraq.

    And I am coming to regret that.

    Experience is a hard teacher.

    Me too!


  95. 95 | January 14, 2013 5:36 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    @ waldensianspirit:
    You also need to kill the soldiers in th efield. Simply killing commanders is not enough. You need to thoroughly devistate and demoralize the enemy. Sherman’s march through Georgia should be out model for dealing with the Islamic enemy.

    I’m reading about the Mongols. They clearly got it.

    Only trouble is, a few generations later, the Muslims co-opted most of the Mongols.

    Genghis Khan lacked a clear ideology, and didn’t see anything wrong with Islam, though he did not adopt it himself.


  96. 96 | January 14, 2013 5:38 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Chicago just gets worse & I hate to see it.

    I used to live there. It is the most corrupt place in all recorded history.


  97. Speranza
    97 | January 14, 2013 6:05 pm

    1389AD wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    @ Speranza:
    Chicago just gets worse & I hate to see it.

    I used to live there. It is the most corrupt place in all recorded history.

    It is notorious for its corruption.


  98. Speranza
    98 | January 14, 2013 6:06 pm

    1389AD wrote:

    Only trouble is, a few generations later, the Muslims co-opted most of the Mongols.

    Genghis Khan lacked a clear ideology, and didn’t see anything wrong with Islam, though he did not adopt it himself.

    It was under Genghis Khan’s grandsons that Islam made inroads into the Mongols.


  99. Speranza
    99 | January 14, 2013 6:07 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    Jesse blames everyone but the actual criminals.
    The yoots are just victims doncha know.

    Jesse admitted once that he gets nervous late at night when he is walking in D.C. and he thinks some yoots may be following him.


  100. Speranza
    100 | January 14, 2013 6:08 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Jesse is a race hustler & extortionist.
    That is the family business.

    Business is booming.


  101. Speranza
    101 | January 14, 2013 6:09 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    He’s a turncoat and has become a concern troll. He loves the attention.

    He has no honor.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David