Redstate

Sure. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

1) Open to more nuclear power. It's not as much as I'd like, but it's more than most Democrats.
2) Practically end no-bid contracts. I see too much room for abuse there.
3) Withdrawal from Iraq, with enough flexibility to avoid leaving the same sort of mess the Brits left in Palestine.
4) Cutting out lobbyist donations.
5) Near-universal health care.
6) Middle class tax cuts, slight to moderate increase above $250,000.
7) Use the tax code to reward corporations that keep and generate jobs in the US.
8) Credit card reform. I could go on and on about the unilateral contractual changes.

There's a lot more.

9) More emphasis on Afghanistan. Those who attacked us found refuge there.
10) More emphasis on Pakistan, and a willingness to act there if need be. Yes, I know that's a huge mess if we get into it, but if we have to send troops into a sovereign state unilaterally, can it at least be to kill or capture those who have already attacked us?
11) He will inititate an investigation of the interrogation methods used by contractors hired by the CIA.

And on, and on, and on. For what it's worth, quite a bit of the standard "insert generic Democrat" issues work for me. I could have made that clearer in the blog. I didn't avoid issues in it at all.

I already mentioned diplomacy in the blog, but that one is paramount.

Senator Obama has stated he is well-disposed towards diplomacy. Frankly I cannot see how any other position makes sense (and that's been my position since well before I knew who Obama even was).

Talk is cheap. It costs us nearly NOTHING to try. If it fails it's not as though we don't have enough Cruise missiles if need be. You can still bomb or invade to your heart's content if you can't talk the other guy down.

When dealing with scumbags on the international stage, and President Tom of Iran is a scumbag, you can both enhance their prestige and send signals of weakness by the mere act of communicating.

It takes a Nixon to go to China effectively, it takes a Reagan to go to the USSR effectively.

By talking to Iran at a high level, you are not standing up for the dissidents in Iran. If Obama said, I want to talk to the people who have fled Iran, I want to talk to the political prisoners in Iran, now, that would be talk that would be helpful.

Iran could blow on its own. Talking to President Tom is NOT going to be seen by his internal opposition as a good sign.

Always side with the dissidents.

Always speak up for the dissidents.

Always remind the world that dictators are a glorified group of street thugs with more resources.

Obama does none of these things, so his talking to Iran will only cause harm.

Note, Bush isn't doing much of these things either, but he is not aching to talk to Iran either.

Engagement worked with the Soviets. The lack of engagement and an open line of communications nearly lead us to nuclear war.

I disagree with your premise, frankly. Avoiding nasty people makes them no less nasty. It just reduces your ability to influence their behavior.

And you can "remind the world that dictators are a glorified group of street thugs with more resources" in the same breath as you announce you're meeting them.

I would also argue (having heard this from Iranians myself) that our bellicosity towards Iran has driven quite a few who were ambivalent towards A-Jad into his arms. We've provided them with an effective outside menace.

It's easy to put words into our mouths if we're not speaking to them directly, sir. It works.

I don't see anyone on the national stage who could pull it off. It would require mocking the Iranian government, and nobody seems interested in doing it. Heck, when is the last time someone made a forceful speech showing solidarity with dissidents in Iran? They are there, but we ignore them and instead want to talk to thugs.

A certain President of Columbia University thought he could take on Iran. His views were and are very Obama-like, and he only ended up being used as propaganda against the interest of dissidents.

it worked under Reagan.

Avoiding nasty people is an implementation of "first do no harm"

I would prefer that we had a President with the communication skills and will to take on Iran in the way that "tear down that wall" took down the USSR, but nobody on the stage has the will and skills to do it.

Carter sat down with the USSR, and they invaded Afghanistan shortly thereafter.

We should be talking with and elevating the dissidents in Iran, the political opposition in Iran---NOT its leaders.

You want a Carter, while I want a Reagan.

Life isn't binary, and we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

We can do both.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

You want fries with that?

before dealing with Iraq is destroyed.

keep talking
just like Obama, the more libs talk, the more they reveal their ignorance, stupidity, failed logic and bad judgment

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

That has got to be the dumbest thing I've read all week.

Noting that we can conduct diplomatic talks while at the same time employing the CIA (and other organizations) in all manner of useful skullduggery is not the same thing as admitting we can fight two wars at the same time just as effectively as if we'd done them one at a time.

Seriously, that's bush-league.

at the same time in WWII.

except that we did

and yes, we talked all over the place

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

We didn't win them all at the same time, Gamecock. We focused on North Africa in order to get our men acclimated and seasoned. We then moved on to Italy. As we ramped up production and vastly expanded the size of our military we were able to focus in more and more theaters.

We haven't expanded our military in any way in proportion to that effort. If we'd added a good five to ten divisions to the regular Army (and Marine Corps) we might have been able to deal with the Taliban for good while at the same time dealing with Saddam and the mess that followed.

Why can't you admit we could have handled this better? Why is a criticism of the strategy so offensive?

Because none of the criticisms of the strategy we've seen from libs is constructive. They are all destructive to the primary element of the strategy which worked so well for Patton: Find the enemy, pin him down, and kill him as quickly as you can. Then move onto the next target and secure it in the same manner. Eventually your enemy will come to understand he has two choices: die or stop being your enemy, and frankly, we don't really care which of the two he chooses.

Don't play Whack-A-Terrorist, or if you do, at least use a bigger freaking mallet. The surge is proof that this is the better strategy.

But I agree, most lib criticism has been in the form of 20/20 hindsight. It's like the game we used to play as kids. You try to time when something was going to happen. You'd say, "Mom is going to pull into the driveway in 5...4...3...2...1" and if you were right, you looked like a genius. If you were wrong, you'd wait a few seconds and start the countdown again.

The Democratic response to Iraq has been the same. They don't need a new strategy, they can just keep saying "Pull out, pull out, pull out" until eventually, when the Iraqi government is able to stand on its own and we do pull out, they can smile smugly and say, "See, we were right. Pulling out was the right decision"

Here is a great reason to support conservativism:

On September 11th, 2001, we all wept, liberal and conservative alike.

On September 12th, 2001, conservatives demanded to know who did it and wanted to take the fight to them. Liberals didn't want to make them angry or offend them.

The left had calls that we shouldn't go into Afghanistan because we shouldn't be 'angry'. Then when Afghanistan started to work, the call was that we should go into Iraq instead of Afghanistan.

When we started to consider Iraq, the left turned on the idea saying that it is evil and that we shouldn't go there to steal oil or 'finish his daddy's war'.

Once we were in Iraq, the left started complaining that we really ought to be looking at Iran.

now that things are going pretty well in Iraq (not great, but not horrible), we're eyeing Iran and the left is turning on the idea and ranting about how it'd be evil.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85

.

about being entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

You can't just make up a history of the military operations of World War II in order to support your own, in my view, exotic positions.

The overwhelming preference of the US general staff in WW II was a cross channel invasion in 1943. We fought in North Africa and Italy because the Brits wanted to fight there. Fighting in Italy was one of the most deluded bits of strategic nincompoopery that we've ever been involved in.

We did add several divisions for the War in Iraq. They're called "National Guard."

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

Ah, so we're full up then? Not stretched at all? Fully able to respond to another regional conflict if need be? Rotations are easy?

Is THAT why I keep having buddies get sent over there after a year or two back?

I said we have not enlarged the regular army proportionally to what we did in WWII. Attack the argument I made, not the one you'd prefer I had made.

Ah, so we're full up then? Not stretched at all?

That's your argument, not mine. But it fits in nicely with your bizarro world riff on World War II.

Fully able to respond to another regional conflict if need be?

Which crisis are we not responding to? Did a war break out while I was going through a blackout? The only crises out there for you guys are ones that really don't matter: Darfur and Burma. The potential crises that do matter, Korea and Iran, your guy has already said he won't do anything about. This sort of goes back to the talent the left has for advocating military action anywhere that it doesn't matter so they can look tough. When one looks at the Army Reserve (TPU and IRR) and the National Guard and our allies it is hard to come up with a scenario that involves substantial numbers of US ground forces. The best case for that would be a DPRK invasion of the ROK and sending ground troops to the ROK is the equivalent of sending coals to Newcastle.

Is THAT why I keep having buddies get sent over there after a year or two back?

I'm guessing there is a point here but I don't see it.

I said we have not enlarged the regular army proportionally to what we did in WWII.

You're advocating increasing the strength of the Army to 17.9 million soldiers. That's a little extreme don't you think. (proportional to the 8.3 million soldiers in 1945 from a population base of 141 million).

Attack the argument I made, not the one you'd prefer I had made.

Fine, I'll attack that argument though it is so stupid it is beneath contempt.

1. The infrastructure doesn't exist to train that number of men.

2. The industrial base doesn't exist to support them.

3. At and annual cost of $100,000 each that's a damned expensive way to fight a war that doesn't comprise an existential threat to the nation.

4. We don't need that many troops.

5. We don't have the officer and NCO cadres to staff them at any thing other than a criminal level of incompetence.

Want to show us some more of that superior intellect, sparky?

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

We haven't expanded our military in any way in proportion to that effort. If we'd added a good five to ten divisions to the regular Army (and Marine Corps) we might have been able to deal with the Taliban for good while at the same time dealing with Saddam and the mess that followed.

Problem is, it was Bill Clinton that got rid of those divisions in the Army in the first place. In October 2001 we didn't have those divisions any more, so as Rumsfeld said, we had to go to war with the army that we had, not the army we wanted.

If we had taken the time to add those divisions, we would still here in 2008 have the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq to deal with. Instead, we've almost finished off Iraq and have semi-stabilized Afghanistan-- there is still work to do in both places, but the terrorists that had free run of both those countries are now mostly bottled up in the mountains of Pakistan.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

and most of the people on this site understand that.

I suspect not many and that most of those are in custody or disabled. Most important is to prevent future attacks, and Bush is the expert on that so far, rather that revenge motivated charges of the Light Brigade. This whole "emphasis" meme is a bore. The left always wants to emphasize something else, rather than what we, i.e. America is doing whether its going well (in which case a repub must never get credit) or tough (in which case they haven't the stomach for anything but bashing the repubs).

Even today, in the wake of Iran's missile launch provocations, who did the Messiah and his dem apostles attack?

Bush

vile unpatritotic party, the dems

dogsh*t

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

I consider Al Qaeda in Iraq significantly less responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001 than I do Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden. Killing Al Zarqawi was great, but you'll forgive me if I'd rather we nabbed Zawahiri.

If the core of Al Qaeda remains in Pakistan then we should be doing a lot more in/with Pakistan. I considered Iraq a tangent and I still do. The most charitable I can be is that it worked well as a lighning rod and it attracted our enemies.

Name three significant terrorists residing in Iraq prior to the invasion. I'll give you Abu Nidal, but if you could please tell me what that monster had done to make war against the United States in the last fifteen years I'll be impressed.

or severely incapacitated. Zawahiri, since 911 has directed and allied with losers in Iraq and has been unable even to fell a toll booth in the Lower Forty-Eight. Nothing like having a SAFE haven and nation-state, eh. They haven't been safe since 1 minute after 911 thru today. They haven't had a nation state and the money that goes with it since Dec 2001.

You are typical for a lib dem. You want to chase disabled fugitives rather than do the harder work of preventing future 911s.

useless

What did UBL and Zawahiri have to do with 911 before 911?

When you answer that question correctly and understand that your strategy now resembles the strategy that made 911 possible, come back and see me.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

You would be referring to the decentralized nature of Al Qaeda? You might also be referring to the fact that Al Qaeda has further splintered? Perhaps you might refer to the fact that Osama bin Laden was never much more than a money man and a figurehead?

I'm not blind, nor am I stupid. Symbols matter sometimes. When somebody leads a movement that kills three thousand American citizens and gets away with it despite two wars and God knows how many lives lost and money spent it really emboldens our enemies.

questioned your patriotism. Didn't get the memo?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

You can refute my reply or you can pick apart the dicta. Gonna go with the dicta, or will you respond to my point?

Osama's still loose. As far as our enemies see it, he's gotten away with the most virulent attack on America in decades. Think that doesn't have any negative consequences?

videos that don't show the latest edition of the NYT every few years. Can't even go to Mecca. A real victory.

Our enemies see Iraqis taking the country from the crazies. Qaddafy surrender. The Taliban ruling goats instead of a nation and Pakistanis running them out of their neighborhoods.

You are very ignorant.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Hardly. There isn't a thing you've said thus far I did not know. It is not ignorance, my dear Cockstradamus. It is "disagreement" which is an entirely different bird. I don't expect you've seen such plumage hereabouts?

When the radical islamists are posting those web videos and otherwise trying to recruit, do you think they talk about the hell of living in Waziristan with the goatherders, or do you think they talk about the glory of their sacrifice and the fact that their dear leader remains free and able to plot further harm against the Great Satan?

Is it so much to ask that we put a bullet throug his damned head? Christ, I would have figured kidney failure would have dropped him by now.

In a country where our leaders practice the art of "spin" to the point of absurdity why the heck wouldn't you assume our enemies are capable of it?

pool.

smile

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

The Confederacy died of decentralization. Jefferson Davis constantly lamented his inability to centralize power similar to how Lincoln had done it. Tens of thousands of militiamen were stationed hundreds or thousands of miles away from combat by governors who put their state before their country. I'm pretty sure it was Jefferson Davis himself who said that the Confederacy's tombstone should have read "Died of a Theory."

Oh, and we did manage to get Jefferson Davis after the "de-centralization" following Appomatox. Rats tend to scurry when you shine a light on their hole. The trick is you're supposed to actually catch them when they bolt.

after Appomatox. Zawahiri is 0-for after 911. Bush's policies seem to be working. no mo holes in us cities

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Yes. There were quite a few dead-enders after Appomatox.

before they formed the Axis?

Why did the US declare war against Germany after Pearl Harbor?

There were NO connections between Japan and Germany--None.

Later in the war, there was a single joint navy exercise off the coast of Madagascar--but that happened after the US was all in.

We declared war on Germany immediately after they declared war on us. They did THAT not long after Pearl Harbor.

We didn't force them together. They sought one another out, and mostly to give the Soviets grief.

on us.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

No, that certainly wasn't the reason we decided to do it, but it absolutely was the flashpoint and it provided very meaningful political cover to FDR.

We may have had to hold off on that had Hitler not been so boneheaded as to declare when he did.

question because you don't like the answer, i.e. Our war with Germany was a pre-emptive war of choice to PREVENT more Pearls!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Pre-emptive? Really? The fact that Germany had invaded most of the free world doesn't give rise to a causis belli?

No, I do not consider it pre-emptive at all. The Germans had been conducting surveillance and other spying inside the United States. We had more than sufficient reason, to my mind, to go to war with them.

They, like Germany had violated a cease-fire from an earlier invasion; like Germany was firing on us vessels; and had a megalomanical leader. Unlike Germany, Iraq had come close to having operational nukes and retained the capacity and was harboring international terrorists and funding same.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

as unecessary?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Wow. So you've paired me with Pat Buchanan AND you've paired World War II with the War in Iraq? That's about as loaded a question as I've ever seen.

I will not speak for Mr. Buchanan. For myself? I consider our involvement in World War II one of the most honorable and necessary things this country has ever done. As to your implied question? I do not at all consider the War in Iraq necessary. I considered the idea to be a tangent before we went in. I considered a tangent as we went in. It is less of a tangent now because it acted as a lightning rod that attracted (and created more of) our enemies. That does not change the fact that I considered it, and consider it now, to have been unnecessary to go in.

I'm sorry, but the idiots we're fighting now don't even rate. They're not in the same league as the Nazis. Dangerous? Absolutely. Able to kill and destroy? Sure are.

Are they going to somehow take over the world through force of arms? Not on your life. Heck, even Iraq proves that. Look at how the Sunnis are dealing with them now.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Obviously not, as you guys derided US for nation-building and intervening in Kosovo and so forth.

However, if somebody is actually TRYING to take over the world and has a decent shot, then yes, I'm okay with mobilizing our people and industrial might such that we can slap 'em down.

I believe that war is terrible, but sometimes necessary. Sometimes, yes, but it should not be a first or even second choice unless you plainly have no other options.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Yes. I would have opposed going into Afghanistan prior to 9/11. So would have the Republican Party, for the most part.

I would have supported actually spending money on infrastructure in Afghanistan after they tossed the Soviets, though.

did. Hence, no mo 911s since then. You would wait for another 911 and then react with indictments yet you oppose infrastructure after deposing Saddam.

you learn nothing

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Bombing of the Cole. President Clinton did... well... nothing.

9/11, President Bush responded.

Difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85

The Cole bombing occurred on October 12th of 2000. As I recall, President Clinton did not want to get us into a conflict or serious obligation as it would necessarily have tied down his successor whether or not the next President wanted that commitment. You don't have to agree with the reasoning to understand it's not the same thing as cowardice or weakness.

Moreover, after our embassies were bombed President Clinton DID respond. Wag the Dog, anyone?

That would be what GHWB did re Clinton and Somalia.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

the multiple embassy bombings across the planet by islamic terrorists can't really be connected to the kosovo war (which is where the term 'Wag the Dog' got used) in which we helped the muslims attack the christians.

The closest he ever came to actually going after islamic terrorists was the day that he randomly launched some missiles at Iraq, landing them in the desert, while there was news breaking about Monica.

At no point did he do anything that even remotely resembled taking the fight to the islamic terrorists.

our intelligence and military even had BinLaden..... They just had to run in and grab him. Clinton said no.

Gee. Thanks.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85

We had been supporting our allies for a long while, without having actually made any formal acts of War. We let our pilots help the british and we also gave them supplies.

After Pearl Harbor, we decalred War on Japan and the Axis Powers.

We decided to take care of Germany first, as our allies were being overrun, and we'd need their help in order to fight the Japanese Army.

The war with Germany took so long and s decimated our allies that they were not of as much help with the Japanese as we would have hoped, but we had a new ally in Russia, which had turned against Germany when Hitler tried to attack them as well. (Russia, you'll remember, trained Hitler's army in Russia for him, so that he could build an army without breaking the World War 1 treaties against Germany.

Russia, with China, helped to fight off Japan from Asia while we went island hopping.

Finally, with the dropping of a couple massive bombs and public will turning against the Emperor, their back broke and they wholly surrendered.

The Reconstruction of Japan was done by us, pretty much on our own. Within 6 months they had a Constitution and were well on their way to rebuilding the face of their nation.

Germany, on the other hand, was a multi-nation SNAFU which caused decades of turmoil and strife, including a giant wall.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85

because the whole point of attacking Iraq when we did was preemptive not reactive which is the point libs keep missing. Like the theoretical killing Hitler during the Putsch the point isn't retribution for things done, it is the prevention of madness later.

You and I remember when the Shah came to the US and Carter would not let the Shah's police crack down on the Iranian protesters. Carter would not do a thing when they took over the US embassy and held 53 Americans hostage for 444 days. He wanted a diplomatic resolution by the UN Chairman Kurt Waldheim. Waldheim finally did travel to Teheran, and he was scared enough to wet his pants almost before he left without accomplishing a thing. Some of us are old enough to remember how well that Carter diplomacy works.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

Nope. Life ain't binary. It isn't a complete lack of engagement or a complete pushover.

What makes you think Obama would be any less wiley in foreign affairs than he's been up to this point? Anybody who can get his opponents knocked off the ballot to run for the Senate (if I'm remembering that story right) is willing to go rough if he has to.

McCain ain't Bush and Obama ain't Carter. Wishing won't make it so.

years of sanctions and decades after hostage taking and Hezbo killing Americans and Quds killing Americans in Iraq,

is to grab one's ankles and spread one's cheeks farther apart...

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

I'm not sure why I bother constructing arguments if you're going to do me the courtesy of constructing them for me.

Thank you indeed.

100 minutes or
100 hours or
100 days or
the 6.5 hours (13 episodes) allowed a sitcom before cancellation
or 100 years hunting UBL

or

would you just nuke the whole earth east of Manhattan to make sure you get him? tough guys

we all know you libs couldn't stomach one day after a hangnail of troops on the ground

would Bill Clinton come back and direct a 100 month air campaign?

and indictments for Yasin?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Hmmmm........I think a nice round figure like 150,000 troops in Afghanistan might have been sufficient. Or is that overkill? Where could we possibly come up with more than ten divisions? Isn't that a large portion of our force to deploy in one theatre?

Oh, that's right! We sent more than that many to Iraq. I'm sure that hoping we could have sent another division or three to Afghanistan is unreasonable.

Here's a clue: I was saying this years ago.

The ones that are there are bored out of their minds most of the time. Yes, last month Haji got a little testy and we did lose some troops, but the bad guys lost a lot more, which is what happens every time they stick their heads out of their holes in Pakistan. My kid spent nine months down on the Pak border riding patrols like the Cavalry of the Old West trying to pick a fight with them. Got one now and again, smashed them, left the wounded and prisoners to the Afghan Army, and either moved on looking for another fight or went back to the FOB to smoke Marlboros and drink Red Bull.

Yes, we probably could use more troops there and I won't repeat what our troops think of their gallant NATO allies' contribution to the effort, but 150K is just a silly Democrat meme based on their opposition to the Iraq venture.

In Vino Veritas

Silly meme my ass.

I don't mean literally 150,000 troops. I tossed out that number because it's an approximation of what we deployed in Iraq. However our flag officers have been vocal about the disparity in commitment. We need more men and women in uniform over there. We also need more and frankly more effective civilian aid groups over there. Some of the stories coming out of the government-run or government-sponsored groups are just flat out amazing (in a depressing sort of way). The .gov sent people who didn't know what the heck people in Afghanistan could grow or produce and, wow, those programs aren't doing too well.

Developing meaningful businesses in Afghanistan is essential to giving the Aghani people ownership in their future. It cannot be three options - Taliban, poppies, or fear. We can do a lot better by the Afghanis, and a significant chunk of what I think is necessary isn't even military.

Some of you guys conflate these concerns with the central thrust of the war on terror. Those concerns are party of my thinking, yes, but it's also a question of honoring our commitments. We let the Afghanis down after they tossed the Soviets. We could have followed-through with meaningful foreign aid for pennies on the dollars we're spending now. I know, I know, hindsight and all that.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake.

the resort to profanity is somewhat surprising. I'm not nuanced and only the site rules keep my normal profanity in check. I don't believe ANY Democrat when they talk about all we should do in Afghanistan; they're either lying to themselves, lying to me, or both. The only time the Ds ever showed real support for the Afghan effort was when they could use it as a counterpoint to the Iraq effort.

So, on this as on so many issues, you are either trying to see how long you can stay here as a troll or really don't know your mind and can't take firm positions. You threw the figure of 150K out because you knew you could make a snide point with it; oh, we'd have the troops we need in Afghanistan if they weren't all tied down in the losing war in Iraq - or whatever the latest talking point memo says. Now you either believe that or you don't. If you believe it, you're wrong and if you don't believe it, you're a troll.

In Vino Veritas

Delightful. You get to define my options or read my mind.

I stated in the blog I did not want to go into the Iraq debate here. I will keep this brief and ask that you hold off until I write about that topic.

One of the reasons I opposed the War in Iraq was the diversion of resources from Afghanistan before that conflict was properly resolved. The fact that the Taliban is still a going concern and Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still alive in July of 2008 shows pretty plainly that my concerns were valid. If you'd asked me in 2002 what I was afraid of happening by this second front I probably would have said "The Taliban may survive and continue to make life a living hell for the Afghani people. The leadership of Al Qaeda may survive."

Do you recall WHY we invaded Afghanistan? Two of the reasons for that invasion have been less than achieved.

Don't imply I'm a troll, either. I put a good bit of time into responding to a question I've been asked repeatedly. I deserve better from you than that.

charge of the light brigade?

They aren't controlling a nation and a SAFE haven for training camps and nation state money to launch new 911s.

But you want to make Afghanistan be Connecticut before we deal with actual threats elsewhere?

foolish

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Would we have shifted the bulk of our efforts from Europe to Japan if Germany was still, at least partially, run by the Nazis?

The fact that aid workers are still being slain, the fact that women are still (in some of the areas outside of Kandahar) living in fear, the fact that the job IS NOT DONE is something you have to either spin or ignore.

We could have obliterated those idiots if we'd kept our eye on the ball for another year, perhaps less.

were in a jar in GWB's desk, he'd be a fool to tell anyone. The very minute it is announced the bin Laden is dead, the cry to bring the troops home will be overwhelming, and my money would be on you being among those joining that throng.

I don't believe bin Laden is alive or has been in a long time, but if he is, the very smartest thing that radical Islam could do would be to sacrifice him to us because we'd be out of the region as quickly as we could pack up.

In Vino Veritas

and Iran is much more aggressive now than it was then.

They were prepared to obliterated by a US retaliation that never came. It surprised them.

Jimmy Carter has made Iran more dangerous for all future Presidents by his feckless cowardice and dithering after the US Embassy in Teheran was taken and Americans were held hostage.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

then maybe we should look beyond the corrupt Chicago politics and go find someone from the Mafia to lead the US -- or better yet -- if the willingness to go rough if they have to is the criteria -- then we should select a Russian mobster as the candidate.

Your age (or lack thereof) is showing because you are making it up as you go along.

Getting someone thrown off a ballot in Illinois is far different from facing down a radical Islam and a nuclear armed Iran.

If Obama is so willing to go rough, then why has he refused townhall meetings with John McCain? I guess going rough is selective as long as the "roughness" is one directional.

M Penny

You want the honest answer?

The guy in the lead would be an idiot to give free press to the guy who's losing.

To seeing the candidates contrast themselves ?

Maybe so, I have never appreciated someone trying to run down the clock.

Our MSM betters have decided the people want ObamaVision, so you WILL tune in and FEEL THE LOVE.

Got it?

Watch out Han -- this is a conservative principle. You see life is not a zero sum game (which is the equivalent of binary). Conservative principles are that my success does not preclude your success. We can both achieve. Yet the Democrat platform is that we must tax the rich to give to the poor. Now that is a binary or zero sum game concept. Even Michele Obama warns us that Barak will take away from "us" to give to "others".

http://constitutionallyright.com/2008/04/09/michelle-obama-wants-your-pi...

And Barak measures the binary status of life on a global scale..

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmU1YzAyODEwMjEyYmI3Y2FhOWVlYmV...

M Penny

911 and The Swimmer remembers 911, The Shah, Gorby and Vietnam and still gets it all wrong.

Libs are stupid, not always ignorant.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Solo lost his "s" in Star Wars, too.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

All the hijackers died on 9/11. Are we in a war against the hijackers of 9/11, or a war against the Islamist ideology that wants to kill infidels?