Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Barack Obama is either stupid, ignorant, or an absolutely pathetic liar (or all three)
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Anti-war liberals | Barack Obama | Democrats | Lying liberals | War — Comments (114) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
CY did a great job with this story here. I have just the following to add:
Barack Obama is, quite simply, doing at least one of three things here (and, with credit to Lileks, I fully expect the Left to shut up and reverently honor my acting out of the highest form of patriotism with regard to Mr. Obama and dissenting against him):
(1) He is lying his ArmaniGucci pants off, on purpose.
(2) He is blowing smoke out his fourth point of contact just to be able to appease his base more
(3) He is so mind-blowingly ignorant of the military and its status in the GWOT that he either heard this story and believed it, or thought that nobody less mind-numbingly vacuous and stupid than him would see through it.
Though these options are not mutually exclusive, the two parts of option (3) are the least exclusive of all.
The spinning after the fact makes all the difference in the world to this story, too.
Obama originally said:
They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.
Now, in the AP factcheck (never thought I'd be stringing those two words together without a "that never happened" tacked onto the end), the story says:
The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured.
The former -- Obama's original, so-stupid-and-false-that-it's-almost-impossible-to-respond-to story -- is absolutely ridiculous, and is (in keeping with the options listed above) either a bold-faced lie, a made-up story that the teller didn't expected to be called on (and, given that the Left's knowledge of the different types and uses of cannabis typically tends to be vastly superior to its knowledge of anything military or warfare-related, why would he ever expect to be questioned or caught?), or (and this likely goes along with the above two options) a sign of a frightening level of military ignorance on the part of a common citizen -- LET ALONE on the part of a SITTING UNITED STATES SENATOR.
The second version? Believable, for some obvious reasons. See this picture? That's me -- as a journalist, not as an operator -- firing an AK-47 on the shooting range at Patrol Base Olson in Samarra, Iraq. The AK-47 is one of several in the Company Arms Room there. They are not taken out on missions (or, if they ever are, it is because a replacement part is needed in a pinch, and a resupply convoy might not be scheduled to come until later that day or perhaps the next), but are novelty/"cool-guy" weapons taken as the spoils of battle, which are cleaned and taken care of by the Company's soldiers and are fired, for fun, familiarity, and proficiency -- on the Patrol Base firing range. This is a normal activity for combat units.
Now, can anybody here spot the difference between the Obama debate story and the revised, AP-written one? That's right -- the absolute-crap, made-up-to-get-attention, show-of-unbelivable-ignorance Obamariginal story tells of those events in the context of President Bush and SecDef Gates so underequipping soldiers that they have to go capture enemy weapons to fight (no word on how they would do that if they aren't able to be armed themselves due to a lack of supplies -- guess we really do have a force of Rambos in the conventional Army); the AP story makes clear that what this really was was units taking "war trophies" they had earned in combat, and using them for various purposes outside of their official duties, which they performed while using standard-issue, in-stock, plentifully-supplied American weapons, and occasionally using them as spot-replacements for broken gear (imagine that, gear getting broken in war!) while awaiting a regularly-scheduled resupply.
The lying has gotten beyond ridiculous here. It's time for Obama the Messiah-in-Waiting to stop breaking the 9th Commandment, or to officially declare that in the religion for which he serves as Godhead, we can all disregard fact and truth in the name of spinning a good yarn.
After all, it's "for the greater good" -- and it's all about compromise.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | To answer Bob (and Glenn's) question... — Comments (21) »
Barack Obama is either stupid, ignorant, or an absolutely pathetic liar (or all three) 114 Comments (0 topical, 114 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Obama wasn't lying. He
by Section9
Obama wasn't lying. He believed the "truthiness" of the tale, then spun it to appear as if it was still going on.
It's much worse than mere lying. That's understandable. Rather, he's ignorant of the issue at hand: war and peace.
This is ignorance on a galactic scale.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
Obama's anecdote.
by Addison
From ABC's Jake Tapper:
Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.
"It was very difficult to get any parts in theater," he says, "because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most -- so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan."
"The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.
I think you've got a problem with either the soldier or Jake Tapper. But Obama's story checks out here, though perhaps you have a semantic quibble over whether the weapon-grabbing motive is implied in "capturing."
They did have enough of a certain kind of weapon (specifically the ammunition), that was because of prioritization toward Iraq, so they captured some replacements and used them instead. That appears to be, via Tapper, the soldier's story. It's very different from your "trophy" interpretation -- which is based on your experiences in "prioritized" Iraq, right? -- and pretty darn close to Obama's version.
longer rules a nation and hasn't since 2001. On a side note, the Crypts don't rule LA.
Obama NEVER praises the noble mission of America in Afghanistan or anywhere on Earth outside his campaign. Rather, he and the dem party characterize the US military as "our kids" as victims of President Bush.
We don't hire Presidents to relate anecdotes whose purpose is to make America look bad.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
But let's be honest here, if
by indy2008 hantworth
But let's be honest here, if the Taliban hadn't been aiding Al Queda and if September 11th never happened we would not have sent our troops there to overthrow the Taliban.
We did it because it was in our best interest. Whether the mission of America in Afghanistan is noble is debatable. There can be a distinction between America's interests and the soldiers' sacrifice.
Several factors make our mission in Afghanistan noble, most if not all of which requires one to recognize absolute truth, good and evil in a substantive sense.
America is good.
The Taliban were and are bad.
The Taliban did and do target innocent life intentionally to achieve a political purpose.
So, you miss the point when you speak of interests, without addressing the interests of whom.
moral relativism sucks
It sucks that one could suggest that the nobility of our mission in Afghanistan is debatable.
Young man, I pray you will resist the University's mission to make a fool of you.
It is not a rule that you not be wise before age 40.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
The hubris is astounding in
by indy2008 hantworth
The hubris is astounding in your comment.
"America is good"
Was America good when it allowed slavery?
You speak of an absolute truth, absolute is perfection and yet you claim man is capable of creating or achieving perfection? That position is laughable.
Oh yeah, they have and do everyday. Verdict for the USA.
see also
is v was
now v then
west 1st civilization to end slavery on moral grounds v Taliban defined now by enslavement of whole population
Sorry for all the words. Please, speak, You are my best witness.
more
please
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I see depending on the time
by indy2008 hantworth
I see depending on the time in history America can be either good or bad, America during slavery = bad, America after slavery = good. sounds awful relative to me, nothing absolute about that.
Absolute truth = perfection and no person or nation is going to be capable of that.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
So debate me. Make the case that our cause is not noble.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Have you supported every
by indy2008 hantworth
Have you supported every single military campaign the US has launched in its entire history? Yes or no.
punk - nt
by gamecock
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I actually am in full
by indy2008 hantworth
I actually am in full support of Afghanistan, so that is something we probably agree on. I am merely saying the nobility of America's actions are debateable.
Your still free to answer the earlier question.
actions in Afghanistan.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I don't think you read my
by indy2008 hantworth
I don't think you read my previous comment. I fully support the military actions in Afghanistan and believe it to be noble.
I do believe however that not all actions undertaken by the US are noble. You seem to believe the contrary with the absolute truth position.
Can you answer my above question or not?
Afghanistan was debatable.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/barack_obama_is_either_stupid_ignora...
How so?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
As i stated before I believe
by indy2008 hantworth
As i stated before I believe Afghanistan to be a noble cause.
But one might argue that we only toppled the Taliban because after September 11th their harboring Al Queda was a threat to us our goal was to elliminate that threat and to many of us here in the US we view that to be a noble cause.
Someone else might not have seen them as a continued threat and because someone needed to be punished for September 11th, they were the easiest target. They'd say that we were not there for the people but only as a political move to hit someone fast and after we achieved that we did not care anymore. That would be self serving and maybe not considered a noble cause.
But this isn't really about Afghanistan, this is about your position that America is good because it is backed by "absolute truth". Your flawed logic prevents you from answering my very simple question. Can you give me an answer?
guy we get your point. if you want to debate history, maybe
by Doc Holliday
I would be up for it later. If we say yes, you will talk about sick Indians or maybe the war with Mexico. I will tell you clearly that our troops, in all conflicts, have had my respect. But if you want a general answer to your question, yes, I can think of no major US war that I would have protested or thought to be inherently wrong. Of course bad things happen in all wars, that is why it is war.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I would agree that the
by indy2008 hantworth
I would agree that the troops in all conflicts have my respect as well and they have fought nobly I am not arguing that at all. I am saying that America, its politics and motivations in using those troops, is not always noble.
I remember a KP assignment that I did not like much -nt
by Doc Holliday
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
The American Trinity
by gamecock
E Pluribus Unum
In God We Trust
Liberty
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
...he reaffirms and strengthens it:
Redeploy American Troops to Afghanistan. Barack Obama will deploy at least an additional two brigades (7,000 personnel) of rested, trained American troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts to fight the Taliban.
Strengthen NATO’s Hand in Afghanistan. NATO currently has 39,000 troops in Afghanistan. However, the force is short-staffed according to requirements laid down by NATO commanders. At the same time, some countries contributing forces are imposing restrictions on where their troops can operate, tying the hands of commanders on the ground. In particular, France and Germany have been unwilling to commit troops to areas where the fighting is heaviest. As president, Obama will work with European allies to end these burdensome restrictions and strengthen NATO as a fighting force...
Train and Equip the Afghan Army and Police. [...] Barack Obama will strengthen the training and equipping of the Afghan army and police and increase Afghan participation in U.S. and NATO missions, so that there is more of an Afghan face on security.
Increase Non-Military Aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion. [...] This aid would fund reconstruction, police and army training, embassy operations, and local projects including efforts to impact the lives of ordinary Afghans and to give farmers alternatives to growing opium poppies. The aid would also be tied to better performance by the Afghan national government, including anti-corruption initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across the country.
Now, I'm sure there's plenty of debate over this plan. For instance, the idea the France and Germany will end their restrictions is far-fetched. But, I don't see how you can say he doesn't (going so far as to say "NEVER") praise the mission in Afghanistan when he wants to send additional brigades. In fact, a large portion of his criticism of the Iraq War is founded in his belief that the Afghanistan War was indeed noble and necessary. But mostly my post was concentrating on Jeff's post and not the wider political scene.
hmm, so retreat from Iraq and try harder in Afghanistan?
by Doc Holliday
yeah right, if we surrender in Iraq, it will not exactly be shock and awe to the Taliban. And if you think France and Germany are going to listen to this newbie Obama, heh.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
our enemies that we won't fight unless we can beat them in 2 weeks.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Show me ONE link where he EVER uses the word NOBLE re ANY USA military mission. Leftists like him reserve that word for "community" organizing or protests in Berkeley.
He says he wants to send all able bodied Americans thru the Khyber Pass on a Charge of the Light Brigade redux to find one man so we can give him Miranda rights and release him if an OJ jury nullifies history, but he, and all Dem but Joe
Never affirm the nobility of the US military.
No, they want to "protect"? the military. Our "kids".
I guess they want to hide the military in the Yuka and let them be the last to die at the hands of the Taliban and their ilk.
Don't try and fool me bubba. I have been awake and past puberty since 1972 and was a dem activist and official from 1980-1998. I know the aggression inviting weakness of the dems, and know that Obama would leave in 72 hours if any occupied land didn't resemble Connecticut that soon, lest his approval poll ratings suffer from a body bag in Delaware.
Nothing defines the post JFK dem party more than weakness on defense, hence, the ad hominem attacks.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
sure GC
by Doc Holliday
and as you well know, and imply, the left thinks our troops are victims and people with no other opportunities. This is why they always talk about how most of our troops are poor and minorities (false), because in Demo World, this must be so, why else would one join?
We know better, we know our troops are the best of us, we know they are noble warriors who have are undying respect and pride.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
a leftist speak of the troops as "our kids" and how they want to "protect" the troops (via "standing up").
The millions that we have liberated from tyranny are invisible to them.
I HATE the democratic party.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
555 GC -nt
by Doc Holliday
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
the left to live in the greatest nation in the history of Earth, and not appreciate the miracle and love this country. I cannot fathom such decadence. It would be akin to being alienated from God.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
No, Jeff. I'm afraid you're wrong.
by LangdonAlger
Sorry Jeff, you just don't get it. According to the Tapper article, Jake also says:
"I find that Obama's anecdote checks out...I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad."
See, Jeff? You're not allowed to question His Obama-ness. If you do....well, you just don't care about the men and women bravely serving our country. Who cares if he knows what he's talking about? He Shall Not Be Questioned!
Ugh. I think I'm going to be seriously ill for the next nine months. If Barack happens to win the election, I'll have to extend that sickness for at least four more years.
It really doesn't matter how well-sourced or well-written your article is, the media will NEVER question Obama, nor will they ALLOW him to be questioned. It's absolutely disgusting. In any case, thank you for the insight from someone who is not well-schooled in these matters. I appreciate the time and effort, but I'm afraid it's all for naught as the MSM will provide unyielding cover for their Messiah.
I'd like them to dig further
by SanDiego92108
I'd like them to dig further into BO's past, and how he was raised. His mother was an avowed atheist. She married a man from Kenya, who disappeared when the child was two. Then she went and married a man from Indonesia, and relocated there.
Next, his pastor and confidant said 9/11 was retribution for America's racist past.
Lastly, his wife claims that, until now, she's never been proud of her country.
Let's start connecting some dots here.
I don't know what the dots say about Obama.
by Tim112358
But I don't like what they're saying about you.
"Time and the bell have buried the day, the black cloud carries the sun away."
T.S Eliot, Four Quartets.
Could you elaborate ? nt
by Joliphant
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
is debatable, refuses to make the case for ignobility, yet demands that his challenger pass judgment on scores of other American missions.
indy2008 is not an honorable commenter
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I did. You jumped the gun.
by indy2008 hantworth
I did. You jumped the gun.
The lying has gotten beyond ridiculous here...
by Peter Jacobs
Do tell. I'd have to say most Americans agree, which is precisely why Bush's approval rating is approaching an historically low percentage.
Whatever initial popular support this administration may have had over the war, it was squandered due to the perceived lack of competence in pursuing a goal with continually evolving justifications and shifting goalposts.
It was about "staying the course" until the 2006 midterm GOP losses, when the course changed. This raised the possibility that if this administration had paid heed to early well-researched studies on occupation logistics, hundreds of American kids that are dead now that would not be otherwise.
You can whine about it all you want, but you're not going to win on this issue.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
2nd off these men and women resigned in record numbers after having been to Iraq sometimes twice....these men and women love their job....this President is their boss...Obama is nothing more than a leftist wack job spouting the same bogus crap about our military that they always do.
I question not only Obama's patriotism I question his wife's patriotism. America has always been noble, not all American's owned slaves and those who did not fought and died to end slavery and by the way the party that fought to keep slavery was the Democrat Party, that old bastion of white supremacy party.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Thank you - nt
by gamecock
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It took you multiple comments to finally admit that America's mission in Afghanistan is noble. You lie and say you said it earlier, but all your comments are memorialized, and so, you lied.
Congrats on finally being shamed into admitting the obvious.
Pitiful leftist. We now seek to shame you into admitting more obvious truths, like
BUT one might argue that we ONLY toppled Hirohito due to the little incident at Pearl harbour.
See? Does this analogy make you see how foolish is your "only."?
If not, then look in the mirror and say hello to Fool.
Also, let me introduce the word deterrence to your vocabulary.
So, after 9/11 Afghanistan was the easiest target?
Really?
How about Canada?
Wouldn't Canada have been easier? Or Hatii?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I never stated Afghanistan
by indy2008 hantworth
I never stated Afghanistan wasn't a noble act, I merely said that it is debateble, meaning people can debate the nature of nobility in the act. Show me a quote where I state Afghanistan in not noble.
You still can't answer a simple yes or no question. Doc answered. Its not really hard, unless of course you are stating America is good based on absolute truth. So go ahead and answer already and stop changing the topic, its tiring.
you state ends now. You are not a serious person.
goodbye
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Dodging the question til the
by indy2008 hantworth
Dodging the question til the very end. All the signs of a great debater.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Indeed
by Peter Jacobs
No doubt you supported president Clinton's Operation Allied Force. You know, to stop ethnic cleansing, genocide and all that.
You did, didn't you?
Thats a great statement but
by indy2008 hantworth
Thats a great statement but its not an answer to the question. Yes or no?
If you answer "yes" than you'll have to explain your support for military campaigns like Operation Allied Force and tell us how noble you think Clinton was for doing so. Keep in mind this is not about the troops this is about the motivations for the military campaign not its performance.
But this is not about any real specific military conflict. It is about your belief that America is always "good" based on some absolute truth and the enemy is always "bad". Your ever so eloquent statement that "moral relativism sucks" leads me to think that you some how equate all of America's actions, especially the military ones, as being based on some moral absolute. That means that you trust Congress, you know the ones with the power to declare war, to determine moral absolutes and in your opinion they have been right every single time.
Your position is a joke.
common troll tactic, keep asking the same question and never
by Doc Holliday
accepting the answer. If you really wanted to discuss various conflicts, such as Operation Allied Force (which I supported), then you would not be acting like a classic troll. This is not Daily Kos, we will not play into your game. Feel free to respond, but I will not feed you.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
This wasn't really about any
by indy2008 hantworth
This wasn't really about any specific military campaign, although the discussion started because of Afghanistan. This was about GC's belief that America is always good and its military campaigns always noble based on some absolute truth, moral absolutism perhaps.
I find his position with that reasoning to be flawed. The question was about support, not about outcome, those are two different factors, one can support a position yet still be unhappy with the outcome or vice versa.
(our means the USA) mission in Afghanistan is debatable.
See my first comment
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/barack_obama_is_either_stupid_ignora...
Then yours
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/barack_obama_is_either_stupid_ignora...
"That" is what "this" is about.
I appreciate that you conceded your country's mission is noble in less than 2 hours. Better than most hate America libs.
I have nothing but contempt (if over 30) and/or pity (if under 30) for any American that does
not understand the concepts of good and evil and world history enough to recognize the obvious goodness of the US.
Your persistent efforts to tear down America is contemptible. Good Americans make it possible for punks to do so in comfort.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
GC, "good" and "evil" are such archaic concepts
by Lord_Vegas
don't you realize that everything is relative -- Communism, for instance had nothing but noble intentions -- even if the results were somewhat flawed. One man's good is another man's atrocity. Who are we to be judgmental?
/snark
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
ATTN: indy2008
by Neil Stevens
Play nice. This is a moderator speaking.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Not addressed to me, but I
by Flagstaff
Not addressed to me, but I wonder if you've become lost in the blogosphere and can't find our way home.
"It is about your belief that America is always "good" based on some absolute truth and the enemy is always "bad". Your ever so eloquent statement that "moral relativism sucks" leads me to think that you some how equate all of America's actions, especially the military ones, as being based on some moral absolute."
Speaking only for myself, I find it odd that any American would think that America isn't "always 'good.'" It makes no sense to believe that we're "bad." And, by definition, that would make our enemies "always 'bad.'" They are enemies, after all.
That is NOT to say that our actions are always right and never wrong.
As to those actions being based on a "moral absolute," they SHOULD always be based on the "absolute" idea that they have to benefit the American people first and foremost. Benefitting
others at our expense has no place in the equation. Again, the actions taken might turn out to be wrong, as in ineffective or even counterproductive, but their aim should be to benefit us.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
It seems most commentors
by indy2008 hantworth
It seems most commentors believe that as long as an action is done for the benefit of the American people than it is a just and noble cause. Does that sound like a fair assesment?
No and would you care to give examples of Unjust
by Joliphant
American wars ?
Otherwise you arguing over nothing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
How about the Indian Wars,
by indy2008 hantworth
How about the Indian Wars, Seminole Wars, the Mexican-American War, one might argue half of America was unjust in the Civil War.
I am sure you can justify any war really. I am only suggesting that our motivations for war are not always noble, politicians will give noble reasons and history might record it as such but that might not always be the sole prupose. Our own self interst doen not inherntly make the act noble.
I'll state again too that the performance of our troops is always worthy of respect.
yeah, we just wiped out a tribe last week!
by Lord_Vegas
you know D*** well you were talking about THIS war and THIS president -- and so you are now just being a disingenuous troll!
HINZ RULE!
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
Yeah, but he is so bad at it.
by Joliphant
He is about as Indy Howard Dean. His technique is transparent in the extreme. In short he does very good work making lefty trolls look bad.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You might argue that
by Joliphant
You would be wrong.
The Mexican American war ? I am sorry care to try again? Are you saying that Texas did not have the right to join the Union ? Or are you saying we did not have the right to accept her in ? Or do you feel the correct border was the Nueces ?
Civil war, you can argue indefinitely. The obvious fact though is the part that would be considered wrong by your viewpoint was not part of America at the time.
And please pray tell, elaborate on the Indian wars. Are you saying that overall they were unjust ? Or was the scope of the victories too much for you ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I wonder why the US would
by indy2008 hantworth
I wonder why the US would apologize? Can't be that we were in the wrong now could it?
"CAPITOL HILL (AP) - A formal apology to American Indians for years of government mistreatment and abuse is included in an Indian health care bill expected to pass the Senate later this month.
Senator Sam Brownback has been pushing the resolution for the past four years. He says he hopes the measure "helps heal the wounds that have divided America for too long." The Kansas Republican says relations between the federal government and the tribes have been marked by "broken treaties, mistreatment and dishonorable dealings."
The resolution specifically notes that the federal government forced Indians off tribal lands and stole tribal assets among other "official depredations."
Indians are his constituents
by Joliphant
BTW are they now apologizing to themselves ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Um...No. Indians maintain
by indy2008 hantworth
Um...No. Indians maintain their own sovereign Nations within the boundaries of the US. So this is the US apologizing to a sovereign people for its policies and actions. Apologize usually come when someone admits they are in the wrong or acted morally wrong. So Indian Wars = morally wrong. Got it?
I know it is tough to admit being wrong but it suits you. Have a great day.
Killing terrorists is never something to apologize for (nt)
by Neil Stevens
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Beclowning continues
by Joliphant
You really need to let the Native Americans know that they can't vote and aren't citizens.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
what we need
by Lord_Vegas
is a point system for the salient use of the word "beclown"
I just love it!
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
if they could't
by Dienekes
(and couldn't do so multiple times, and late (as in after the polls closed and the Democrats needed more votes), and possibly late (as in deceased)) John Thune would hold both Senate seats in South Dakota :D
Now you're just making
by indy2008 hantworth
Now you're just making outlandish extrapolations for no real purpose as far as I can see.
For on last time, the discussion was about whether or not the motives for America entering into any particular military campain can be morally debatable. Not the troops performace mind you but the motivations, which include politics and National interests and all sorts of things. Everyone who has chimmed in seems to feel every single military campaign the US has undertaken has been morally in the right and therefor "good" Some have attributed this to an absolute truth or moral absolutism with America = good and any opposition = evil.
That position, although simplistic, is fine to take but it means that both Congress and the Commander in Chief have an infallibility in determining good and evil as they are the only ones who have the ability to declare war and use military force. If the Democrat controlled Congress or the President decided tomorrow to invade Canada and use all nuclear options to liberate Quebec, they would be absolute morally right to do so. You are granting Congress the ability to define good and evil. Period. That form of logic I can not accept.
It means that you supported fully President Clinton in his moral reasons for Operation Allied Shield and not once questioned that it was to divert attention from his sex scandal. You would have been in complete support of Clinton's continuation of Operation Restore Hope and opposed with every fiber of your being the Congressional Republicans pressure for him to withdraw the troops without completing their mission.
I don't believe Congress or the President is infallibile, in decissions of war or anything else. I believe thay can act morally but are equaly capable of acting immoral and so America's motivations for war are debatable.
Tis a tale told, by an idiot full of sound and fury
by Joliphant
But signifying nothing.
So much effort on your part.
Let me correct you. Everyone here understood you wanted to turn this into a discussion of if at anytime during our history somewhere someplace an American acted with an impure motive.
With some fair confidence everyone, I say everyone, understood where you were coming from. We, again I take a liberty, have a pretty good idea about your attempt to hang any baggage that might be found in attic of history on this war.
Nobody fell for it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
No fury here. Maybe you just
by indy2008 hantworth
No fury here. Maybe you just needed to vent.
I think you missed the point of the original disagreement that I had with GC. It was about claiming America has an absolute truth or moral behind every military action it takes.
That is a debatable position.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Can we go any thinner?
_The
by Flagstaff
Can we go any thinner?
_The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher._
And perhaps you should read
by indy2008 hantworth
And perhaps you should read up on the Mexican-American War some more. Texas was part of Mexico, American settlers were illegaly crossing the border and settling there, Mexico out of good faith and probably poor border security allowed a few but then it got out of control. The US offered to buy Texas, Mexico refussed and then the situation degraded into war. Doesn't sound just to me.
Texas was an independent nation at the time
by Joliphant
That wanted to join the Union.
It seems in your case a child was left behind.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Not at the time of the
by indy2008 hantworth
Not at the time of the illegal settling by Americans, who do you think pushed for independant nation status, the Mexicans living there? It was Americans who had illegaly settled in Mexico territory.
Please read and study the history of the US you'll learn a lot and be worthy of debate.
You are beclowning yourself
by Joliphant
The "Illegal settling by Americans" was done by grants made by the Mexican government.
Can you get anything correct on the topic ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
even I admit the Mexican War was not our most noble moment
by Doc Holliday
_I almost said "finest" moment, but it really was one of the most amazing displays of projection of force up 'til that time. If you want to read a good historical fiction book about the war, check out Jeff Shaara's "Gone For Soldiers".
I am not at all saying we were wrong to fight the war, but we did kind of take advantage of Mexico when we had her down. Yes, it was about the Texas border, but after we took Mexico city, we bagged California, New Mexico, etc in the bargain. Of course I am glad we did it, but the war was not quite as noble as say WW2 :). OTOH, the troops and generals were just as noble.
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
When considering moral equivalents today
by David Hinz
we have to consider the mores of the era. The history of the world is imperialism -- win a war --take what land you have won. Only TODAY do we look down upon our own history as though it were some anomaly in world history.
I here ya. I am not looking down on it sir, I am admiting not
by Doc Holliday
of our endeavors are exact copies of themselves. Actually the Mexican War was not simply keeping land we captured. We took the enemies capital and "convinced" them to give us California, and the future New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. Considering the wealth of California alone, it was a big loss for Mexico and a big win for us.
I know you are not saying I am looking down on us, because that would be just stupid. :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I was agreeing with you
by David Hinz
and expanding on your own comment.
cool, we usually do agree, and your point was valid sir -nt
by Doc Holliday
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
The end not so much
by Joliphant
The beginning though ?
I can certainly understand why at the end. We offered a reasonable settlement to avoid the war and were quite ticked we had to go to war in the first place.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm good. The US? It's all right.
by maniacprovost
"Speaking only for myself, I find it odd that any American would think that America isn't "always 'good.'" It makes no sense to believe that we're "bad.""
More proof that people go bat**** when we discuss the war. We have heavily progressive taxation. Is that "good?" We have gay marriage in several states. Is that good? Quite a few of the Indians we exterminated were innocent. That wasn't good. Oh, abortion. Abortion lowers crime and reduces the number of Democratic voters, so it must be fantastic.
If we ever enter a war where we're obviously in the wrong, I'll switch sides gladly.
Please indicate your understanding of this in your next post.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Unlike Bill and Hillary, Obama is also ignorant.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com