Ok.  What country didn't Cheney advise Bush to bomb? 

Posted by: JackStraw at August 25, 2011 09:37 AM (TMB3S)

First off, I brought this up in the Earfquake thread.  Second, I already said, "Cheney rules."

Third, "Cheney rules!"  This cannot be repeated enough.

Someone needs to put this asshole in a room with Cheney for 15 seconds.

I think we should open this thread up to other unreported Cheney news.

Unreported, but strongly implied:

Dick Cheney is NOT a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

Dick Cheney advised Bush in his 2006 state of the union speech to jump the podium mid speech and brutally beat down Jim McDermott.

Unfortunately Bush didn't take this advice.

Posted by: Jason at August 25, 2011 09:40 AM (/Mtjv)

If our only national sec interest in Syria was not getting nuked by them, you would be right.  However, Syria is a key partner of Iran in funneling all sorts of terrorists, terror funding and other goodies all over the place.

It would have been good for us to take them out, unless alternate means were available.  And I don't mean bombing a few shipping containers full of used pinball machine parts from NorK.

Can anyone see Syria using a nuclear bomb against us, if they had obtained one?

Nice strawman. Is this supposed to be some isolationist wet dream, or are you that naive about the nature of force inworld politics, particularly pertaining to nuclear weapons?

So why should WE be the ones to bomb them? For once, Bush made the correct call, and the Israelis took care of their own interests. Which is the way it should be.

Posted by: Jason

I've heard it said on both sides of the aisle that what happens in the Middle East tends to concern us, to varying degrees. Syria obtaining nuclear weapons is little better than North korea having them, especially since we know that Syria likes to promote terrorism and destabilize its weaker neighbors (Lebanon).

Posted by: JackStraw at August 25, 2011 09:50 AM (TMB3S)

And Libya, with all the material that they "voluntarily" gave up.

I can't get the link thing working, but Kratos go to Zerohedge and scroll down a bit. They've got a great recap of the military report on Chinese military capabilities and good map of chinese choke points.

>>>Someday it will come out that Syria didn't just pull nuclear technology out of it's ass, it came from Iraq.

I remember reading a book by an general in Iraqs Airforce that claimed Russian Spetsnaz helped move out all of Iraq's nuclear WMD technology on cargo planes and trucks to Syria in 2003.

I think his name was Georges Sada.

Obviously no way to verfiy it, but it seems believeable given that Russia has been selling this stuff, often under the table, to Middle East dictators for some time now.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at August 25, 2011 09:55 AM (lbo6/)

Is Cheney's Castle of Pain located in the Gor universe I wonder?

>>>I can't see any harm to us so far in North Korea having them. They haven't given them to terrorists, and they haven't used them against us. North Korea would be a complete non-issue for us if we just removed our troops from South Korea (another nation that can take care of itself), and ignored them.

Since you're living in the 1920s can I advise you not to buy any stocks?

Is Cheney's Castle of Pain located in the Gor universe I wonder?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit

Nope. Al can't fit into the loincloth anymore (thank heavens).

Since you're living in the 1920s can I advise you not to buy any stocks?

Posted by: Ben at August 25, 2011 09:57 AM (wuv1c)

Said it better than I could, Ben!

"Since you're living in the 1920s can I advise you not to buy any stocks?"

Can you explain how wanting the South Koreans and Israelis to take care of their own affairs constitutes "living in the 1920s"?

Strange (and inconsistent) that conservatives dislike welfare and encouraging dependence on the US government domestically, but think it is swell overseas...

Nope. Al can't fit into the loincloth anymore (thank heavens).

Posted by: Blue Hen at August 25, 2011 09:58 AM (6rX0K)

*GAG*

All the brain bleach in the world will not fix this.

I can't see any harm to us so far in North Korea having them.

They having seeing eye dogs now.

They haven't given them to terrorists,

And you know this for sure, how?

 and they haven't used them against us.

Thank you Capt obvious.

 North Korea would be a complete non-issue for us if we just removed our troops from South Korea (another nation that can take care of itself), and ignored them.

Posted by: Jason

'cause that's how we roll.

brief history lesson: The Korean conflict occurred because Dean Acheson excluded South Korea from a sphere of defined US interests. This was seen by N Korea as an indication that we wouldn't fight for it. Got that? Ignoring them helped precipitate the conflict, not avoid one. The entire reason that we are there, and we have troops stationed on the 38th parallel and have US dependant housing near Seoul is because any potential future attack by N Korea WILL cause US casualties, and thus a direct attack\k on the United States. We did the same thing stationing troops in the Fulda gap in Germany. If the Warsaw pact wanted to head weat, the best tank country was there. And they would go head to head with US troops, thus involving the US.

>>>>Can you explain how wanting the South Koreans and Israelis to take care of their own affairs constitutes "living in the 1920s"?

No, the concept of "that stuff happening thousands of miles away will totally never affect us" is the pre-1930s mentality.

Our ocean barriers are large but technology has made them redundent.

Dick Cheney is an honorary Pirate who follows the Pirate Way of Life.

A raid on Syria would not have produced much bounty, but certainly would have struck fear into the hearts of the landlubbers, thus making much more likely those landlubbers to acceed to our demands on our next Pirate adventure.

As the Pirates know, the best battles won are those not fought.

>>>>Strange (and inconsistent) that conservatives dislike welfare and encouraging dependence on the US government domestically, but think it is swell overseas...

There is a difference between "liking it" and it being a "necessity."

Would I like the world to go fuck itself. Yes, very much so.

However it's too late for that. We're beyond that. The technology of destruction is so cheap and there is access to it readily available to state and non state actors alike.

While you might say, who cares if the North Koreans have nukes, they can't hit us. I hate to point out that a) they can as Americans live over seas and b) hitting allies and trading partners can hurt us.

I don't judge our defense solely on Americans getting killed.

To me the defense of America isn't simply ensuring that foreign soldiers don't arrive on American shores. We have vital interests globally, specifically when it comes to energy.

This is why the Libertarian movement will never move beyond niche political party status. Their domestic views are quite enticing, but their views on how to deal with the rest of the world are simplistic, childish, and make dangerous assumptions

Who has the ability to remove information and posts from the internet and why?

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, I saw on the internet military surveilance videos of  convoys heading north out of Baghdad. This was while we were waiting for all the "diplomatic options" via the UN (which France and China eventually blocked). The convoy split and half went to Syria, half to Iran. Ever since the great "Where are the WMD's?" question, I've not been able to find those videos again. Ever.

I KNOW I saw them, complete with commentary at the time questioning how much of the Iraqi military would still be left to defend Baghdad if we ever got there.

My question is HOW does something get permanently removed from public access via the internet after it was posted?

No, the concept of "that stuff happening thousands of miles away will totally never affect us" is the pre-1930s mentality.

Our ocean barriers are large but technology has made them redundent.

Nobody says that it will never affect us, but refraining from meddling in others' affairs would eventually make us the equivalent of Switzerland, who nobody bothers to attack, or hate. You guys fear the terrorist threat, but it is the policies that you love that create it. Which is not to say that they are justified in attacking our civilians, but we've killed more civilians over there than they have over here. But because it was the U.S. doing it, it is OK.

Oooh...Think I just found me some beach reading for vacay in 2 wks. Thats if the NC outer banks are still around. Uggh!

>>>Nobody says that it will never affect us, but refraining from meddling in others' affairs would eventually make us the equivalent of Switzerland, who nobody bothers to attack, or hate.

And here is where you arguement is finally Kaput.

Yeah, if we'd just be like Switzerland, a country of under 10 million in Europe, we'd have no problems.

We are a powerful country, not just militarily. The wealth created in the New York Boston Phill axis is about 1.4 trillion a year. That would make it the worlds second largest economy.

I hate to use a line from Spider-man, great power, great responsibility, you put it together.

We're far too poweful to simply become switzerland. If Switzerland does nothing no one notices, we're the guarantor of world peace and trade. 

It's not just some coincidence that the world has prospered greatly since the 1700s and Pax Brittanica and Pax Americana just happened to correspond with that prosperity.

Cheney emerges from undisclosed bunker

Cougars hardest hit. 

Nobody says that it will never affect us,

Actually, you did. You said that it didn't matter, and that the fact that we haven't been attacked was evidence of it.

but refraining from meddling in others' affairs would eventually make us the equivalent of Switzerland, who nobody bothers to attack, or hate.

And which also a bitch and a half to get at, has little arable land, and is useful to the needs of the various European barnstormers. Compare and contrast Luxembourg with Switzerland. Both have the same posture, and one was used as an on ramp several times.

You guys fear the terrorist threat, but it is the policies that you love that create it. Which is not to say that they are justified in attacking our civilians, but we've killed more civilians over there than they have over here. But because it was the U.S. doing it, it is OK.

Posted by: Jason

We didn't 'create' The Indian/Pakistani nuclear standoff. We didn't tell several arab nations to wage wars of extermination or to deliberately treat 'palestinains' as second class citizens and worse. Our policies didn't create the dynasty of Assad in Syria. We certainly didn't encourage North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons ad test rockets by firing them OVER Japan.And it wasn't our idea for Saudi Arabia to anounce that if Iran gained nukes, then they would.

We understand not only the capabilites and potentialities of American power. We also realize its limitations. You persist in this idiotic static fantasies that if only America were more docile/ supine/ isolationistic that we would be some sort of Switzerland.

Posted by: Jason

Posted by: Jason at August 25, 2011 10:12 AM (/Mtjv)

Ron Paul, is that you? Or are you in study hall posting this from a "smart" phone?  Your naivety is astounding. 

I appreciate your calm and non-childish post. Although you are still wrong. ;-)

"However it's too late for that. We're beyond that. The technology of destruction is so cheap and there is access to it readily available to state and non state actors alike."

Which means you will not be able to suppress it, but all of our rampant bombings, invasions, and general brutishness will encourage people to hate us, and strike us. Put yourself in the place of an Afghani whose family was killed in some errant strike; if you had no hatred for America before, would you now have a reason for desiring revenge?

"While you might say, who cares if the North Koreans have nukes, they can't hit us. I hate to point out that a) they can as Americans live over seas and b) hitting allies and trading partners can hurt us."

They haven't hit our partners with nukes either, and they won't. They're full of bluster. We should withdraw from South Korea and Japan; they will fund their own conventional and nuclear deterrents.

"This is why the Libertarian movement will never move beyond niche political party status."

Finances will compel us to go the non-interventionist route, eventually. And then we'll wonder why we didn't do so all along. You can't control the world, no matter how hard you try or spend, or how many people you bomb.

Our ocean barriers are large but technology has made them redundent.

Irrelevant.  You meant irrelevant.

You also spelled it wrong anyway.

Posted by: Jason at August 25, 2011 10:12 AM (/Mtjv)

Man, this morning is just chock-full of nuts!  

My question is HOW does something get permanently removed from public access via the internet after it was posted?

Posted by: MrObvious at August 25, 2011 10:12 AM (2uovW)

Pirates have found the Way Back Machine very helpful, provided you are trained in its use, and creative in your searching.

http://waybackmachine.org/

For example: http://bit.ly/phS4Ki

Grammar Cop

Redundant :No longer needed or useful; superfluous

So it is the right word. Our oceans are no longer useful when it comes to our defense because of technology and the ease of delivery of very destructive weapons.

Irrelevant.  You meant irrelevant.

You also spelled it wrong anyway.

Posted by: Grammar Cop at August 25, 2011 10:22 AM (sbV1u)

And anyway if he'd spelled it write, you'd still be complaining.

Probably about what words he ended the sentence with.

I have raped a lot of people.  So many, in fact, that the process bores me at times. 

 But you, Jason, you I look forward to raping. 

Sorry to OT, but gotta run and the DOOM thread is dead now.

For you NE'ers preparing for the storm: Of course everyone knows to have water/drinks and food for three days. You know to have a light source and batteries. You know to have a battery powered radio or t.v. for news updates. Here are a few additional items that we Southerners have learned to add.

Not one can opener, but two. Inevitably, with only one, it will fail.

Bug repellant. Both the kind you apply to your person and a citronella candle (if safe to use)

Handi-wipes and hand sanitizer

Plastic sheeting. If your window blows, you'll want to seal it back up after the winds have passed. This will also require a method to hang it. Duct tape will work well.

Duct tape because, damnit, there's almost nothing it can't fix.

A BBQ or fireplace lighter. They are much more dependable than matches.

Clean clothes

Meds

Toilet paper and paper towels, plates, etc...

Extra water for flushing and hygiene

Pet food

If you have kids, something to keep them occupied. The XBox isn't going to cut it. Coloring books or board games will work better. Hey! Maybe they can put those unexercised reading skills to good use.

A big rubbermaid box to keep everything in.

One extra nice thing to have, if you own a car, is an inverter. With it, you can run a t.v. or small fridge or charge your laptop from your car. Just don't forget to run your car from time to time to keep the battery from running down.  Hell, if you don't own a car, you can still run an inverter to a battery via the more direct route, you just won't be able to recharge the battery.

Jane, what did I miss?

but all of our rampant bombings, invasions, and general brutishness will encourage people to hate us, and strike us. Put yourself in the place of an Afghani whose family was killed in some errant strike; if you had no hatred for America before, would you now have a reason for desiring revenge?

Geepers, you are so absofuckinglutely right. 'Cause when you read a history of Afghanistan and the region, you read a tale of people who NEVER fought ANYONE unless they were responding minuteman-like to a foreign invasion.

And that's why Luxembourg has been inviolate all of these centuries; because they were small, and neutral and didn't mess with anyone. So everyone left them alone.

And that's the only reason terrorists commit terrorist acts; revenge. There were no attacks in Spain demanding a restoration of the caliphate in Spain.

There were no attacks on Jewish community centers or translaters of 'Satanic Verses'. All of them were due to revenge steming from blundering US policies and actions.

Thanks for the rewrite of the history of the world. This'll come in handy.

OT- but hubby told me this morning that S.E. Cupp signed a contract with MSNBC and is now on some panel every day (not sure what time slot) and he said she sounded like a total RINO.  No wonder I quit watching TV.  Every damn one of these "pundits" will sell their soul to the highest bidder.

You can see her up close and personal if you sign up for the cruise!

Oh btw, the norks can hit Hawaii and maybe the west coast.
Last time I checked, Hawaii is still in the US

Yeah, but it's loaded with Democrats.

>>>Do you think Switzerland would still be Switzerland if the Nazis had triumphed in Europe?

But their streets are paved with Jew gold!

Now I see why the Ronulans are so fond of the Swiss.

Posted by: jewells45

As long as she's in the selling mood, howz about some pics that would be of interest to the morons, and several of the moronettes?

>>>Probably not, but, unlike with the Swiss, no one can invade us with success.

Except mexico thanks to Libertarian, Leftist, and Democratic open immigration policies.

Posted by: Jason

1.There is a difference between 'there is no interest of the United States at stake here' and 'I don't want to acknowledge any vital interest of the United States here'.

2. No one used the term 'masses of them poised to strike'; you invented it and are now claiming that this is what concerns us.

Your pathetic style consists of generalizations and flat statements that these issues on't concern us, mixed with machinations ad stating the obvious (we haven't been bombed with nukes).

Grow the fuck up.

Posted by: jewells45, tea party terrorist at August 25, 2011 10:30 AM (l/N7H)

Really? That sucks. Ya figure at this point she has made enough money//... Once she gets a whiff of Al Sharpton's breath, and an ass-grab from Ed I know nothing Schultz she'll realize her folly.

Posted by: Jason at August 25, 2011 10:31 AM (/Mtjv)

And on what basis do you make THAT sweeping assessment? 

I say this in all honesty - ARE you in junior high?  Because if so, at least you're getting a decent education here. 

It is my belief that Jason is a distant relative of Gerg.

Posted by: Jason

Who the Hell said anything about invade? You keep vacillating between conventional warfare, terrorism, and policy regarding nuclear weapons. Put the last two together, combine with open borders and nutjobs with university degrees doing Allah's or Kin Jong's work and you lose a city. Both Al Qeada and N Korea have proven that they have freaks of nature willing to do anything from flying airplanes into buildings to kidnapping people in Japan or conducting commado submarine missions against S Korea.

We see method, motive and opportunity. You refuse to acknowledge #1 and 3 and harp on #2 as being exclusively the fault of the US.

coherent

We need an 'edit' button in comments

Posted by: Jason

Who gives a flying fuck what you believe? I believe that SE Cupp should send me racy pictures of herself. I believe that I'll have another drink. I believe in Christ.

My ASSESSMENT of the situation is that two nations with whom we are allies would not be able to withstand an assault if N Korea were backed by any of the sponsor nations from whom they've received aid ad manpower in the past. And the best way (at the moment) to counter such an assault is to make such an assault to costly to contemplate.

And that is the difference between a conservative and a paultard.

There were multiple rumors during the Iraqi campaign that all the "gas and other bio weapons" had been taken across the border into Syria while all the "nuclear research equipment" had been taken to Iran. During the years after Iraq was taken while we were fighting "insurgents" there was a lot of action along the Syrian border, which was identified as a common source of infiltration for the "insurgents". We allegedly never crossed the border into Syria. But there were reports of 2 cities just across the border in Syria that contained "mass storage of bio-weapons and explosives available to the insurgents". Syria of course denied this completely as a fabrication. Skirmishes were frequently reported along the same border with US military involvement on the Iraqi side of the border.

After several months there was a night in which multiple explosions ripped through the area, leveling 2 complete cities in Syria. Again, I saw the reconnisance photos of those cities both before and after the explosions. There were 2 whole (small) cities wiped out and also media reports of "earth quake activity" at the same time. Syria denied any cities were lost but there were Syrian news accounts of rescue ativity in the area at the time.

Insurgent activity in norther Iraq settled down almost immediately after that.

Ever since then I've been unable to find those videos and reconnisance photos of both the Convoy and the "lost cities". I looked multiple times because as soon as it came up, my thought was it was an almost perfect answer to the "where are the WMD's?" question, which neither Bush nor Cheney ever answered.

My belief is that Israel, South Korea, and Japan are capable of taking care of themselves. And since they are not U.S. states or territories, no, they do not deserve our protection.

ALL of the free peoples are needed to defend liberty against the forces of totalitarianism.  

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at August 25, 2011 10:54 AM (1fLwj)

Hear, hear!

Well done.

Posted by: Jason at August 25, 2011 10:48 AM (/Mtjv)

Okay, I'm still exhausted with helping with a Stand With Israel event last night.  Who is this kid Jason?  And where is Dick Cheney when you need him?

My belief is that Israel, South Korea, and Japan are capable of taking care of themselves. And since they are not U.S. states or territories, no, they do not deserve our protection.

Meh. Again, you guys start wetting your pants on account of mere bluster. Isn't it obvious by now what the North Koreans' game is?

That's some mighty big talk.  See, if you're wrong, you'll just say, "Oh, my bad!"  Both the President and the miitary don't have that luxury of being wrong because in this case being wrong potentially equates to millions of lives lost.  So they have to prepare for the worst-case scenario all the time.

If they did less you'd then bitch about how they failed their country.

Oh, and exactly when did you infiltrate the NORK regime again?  You must have some super secret insider knowledge that confirms it's only bluster.  I mean, if you can read Kim Jong Il's mind then buddy, the CIA has a job for you.  You should apply.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at August 25, 2011 11:02 AM (1fLwj)

Comment more, it's some clear and accurate thinking.

It is an empirical fact that a portion of the planet's population seeks the eradication of the West and everything we stand for.  It is also an empirical fact that those people are failing because we stand ready and willing to stop them. 

Damn straight.  A semester or two of Bernard Lewis will confirm that.  Like you I spent a good chunk of time wandering the globe with a pooper scooper helping to clean up the messes of guys who thought like him.  That experience gave me the same perspective you did.

Thanks for your service.

Your belief that Japan is capable of taking care of itself is liberal bullshit. 
Even more so now with their demographic implosion.

But facts don't bother guys like Jason.  It's all about how they "feel."

Why is South Korea, a country more populous and more prosperous than North Korea, unable to handle the North Koreans on their own?

Ever hear of a little country called China? 

If we abandon the South Koreans: Japan, Singapore, and every other bastion of freedom in the East will fall to Communist China.   

Unlike you and your ilk, the enemies of Freedom are hell bent on sticking together to defeat the cause of Liberty. 

They will gladly put aside their differences to destroy the freedoms to enjoy. 

'Your belief that Japan is capable of taking care of itself is liberal bullshit. 
Even more so now with their demographic implosion.

But facts don't bother guys like Jason.  It's all about how they "feel."'

Again, you guys hate welfare and dependence at home, but love it everywhere else.

Again, you guys hate welfare and dependence at home, but love it everywhere else.

Nice red herring

Could you once, just once, have a discussion without violating 10 of the 44 logical fallacies?

Or are you just clueless as to what they are?

That last to is supposed to be a you.

Washington Nearsider 

Thanks. your posts are a pleasure to read.

There's no evidence that China wants to take over these nations. Even if they did, that would not compel us to prevent them from doing so.

Good God you are fucking retarded.  

Posted by: Sean Bannion at August 25, 2011 11:13 AM (sbV1u)
He's either trolling or honest-to-God that naive. 

Both I believe.

It's like a cocktail of stupid.

Shaken, not stirred.

Posted by: Jason

Another lie. It is predicated upon the assertion that the conflict would be restricted to North and South Korea. North Korea shares a border with China and has received aid in the past that included several hundred thousand 'vounteers'. South Korea has no such geographic adbvantage.

And so, you lie and frame the question dishonestly and pretend that no one's answer makes sense. And this is based on your unwillingness or inability to read a fucking map. Or a history book.

Try again paultard.

Again, you guys hate welfare and dependence at home, but love it everywhere else.

Nice red herring

Could you once, just once, have a discussion without violating 10 of the 44 logical fallacies?

Or are you just clueless as to what they are?

Asserting that someone has made a fallacy proves nothing.

I'm not sure how you guys can deny it: You want the Israelis, South Koreans, and Japanese to be dependents of the U.S. The reason varies in each case, and may be as flimsy as a clause in the Japanese constitution, but the fact remains: You don't want prosperous nations to handle their own defense.

@ 212 Washington Nearsider...

I think "aversion to facts" is truely correct...I think it's more of an insurmountable inability to see the real world.

This type.....they'll be hugging on to a tree for dear life when a muzzie AK round goes through their skull.

There's no evidence that China wants to take over these nations. Even if they did, that would not compel us to prevent them from doing so.

How many people will you allow to be enslaved to protect US neutrality?

ALL of them. 

Posted by: Sean Bannion at August 25, 2011 11:25 AM (sbV1u)

That about wraps it up for this one.

Way too nice, but it will do.   Well put.

You're equating things that are not equal.  Apples and oranges, as it were. 

I'd argue that nearly all of us here oppose our government interfering with individuals here.  I'd also argue that nearly all of us understand why our government needs to interfere (read as: 'engage with' other governments.  That's what diplomacy is, by definition.  Sometimes, diplomacy extends to military action.  Usually it doesn't.

For someone who advocates diplomacy abroad, you certainly don't have a very good grasp of what it means. 

"So we have to protect EVERY nation that supplies us something useful?

Another lie paultard. No one said this but you. The question you first asserted is why do this at all? We have answered, "because we deeemed that it suits out interests'. No one here has suggested that we can or should intervene everywhere. You invented that.

Next you argue for this intervention to control prices of such and such.

Posted by: Jason  

Another strawman. No one suggested this but you.

And you still haven't responded as to why Luxembourg has been treated as a door mat when it is even less offensive then Switzerland.

Posted by: Jason

Fuck you. You keep dodging questions put to you and keep inventing strawmen. Try responding to the posts instead of hiding behind strawmen.

No one's talking about centrally planning the world.  No one rational wants a central world government. 

What we're talking about - and this has been pointed out to you before - is establishing conditions under which free markets can exist.  What each state chooses to do with that market is up to them.

There it is again - free will.  Self-determination.  Governments who take that from their people should be opposed by governments who don't.   

In a perverse sort of way I admire Jason...I would accuse him of being purposely obtuse, in a trollish sort of manner, but his steadfast belief in lunatic fantasy prevents me from shouting a profound "Hail fellow, well met!"

Posted by: Kristopher at August 25, 2011 12:02 PM (Z3y1K)

Bwahahahaha!!

We do.  That is, of course, a relative statement.  You seek perfection, utopia.  Our republic isn't perfect, but after seeing much of the crapholes of the world, I assure you it's the best game in town. 

Re the projection of our power, sadly it rarely does much good in the long term because we refuse to make the right impression on our enemies.  The best thing that can happen to some little crap hole nation is a US invasion.  We'll leave the place better than we found it if they let us. 

We are not feared enough.  Sure - we can flex our might and the rats will run scared for a while - but before long they know we've gotten bored and moved on.  They get right back to undermining us.  North Korea is only vulnerable because they can't feed themselves.  If those nut jobs had a functional economy they could build as many nukes as they want and ship them anywhere they want and everyone knows we wouldn't do squat.  Just like we're not going to do anything about Iran.  Our handling of the Iraq war, in which we spent way too much to kill way too few people, showed that we prefer to fight in a way that is beyond our means to support for long.  We love to spare the kids and the women and other stuff these barbarians don't give a crap about.  It wastes our time, resources, and the lives of our soldiers.

We need to start acting like the crazy people.  We need to start doing what our enemies expect - kill lots and lots of our enemies and lay waste to their lands, and leave them all to starve to death.  I'm sick and tired of people thinking war with the US can be anything short of a total holocaust. 

Mercy is for those who are strong enough to offer it without fear.  We're not that strong any more.

The same foreign policy espoused by most of the Founding Fathers, those naive fellows!

Yeah, they really railed against the French aiding us in our quest for freedom and independence. 

Posted by: Kristopher at August 25, 2011 12:12 PM (Z3y1K)

No matter how much you argue with a puppy it will insist on chasing its own tail.

Being the best?  Yes.  I'd like this nation to be better.  I'd always like to improve.  I see dozens of things every day that we could do better.  I know we're the best military on the planet.  I would also like to have the best engineers, doctors, teachers and scientists working in this country.

What I won't do - and what you seem to have done - is throw my hands up and say 'fuck it' because we're not as good as I'd like.  I refuse to say 'well, let's just quit' because there are still flaws (some inherent, some found in personnel) in our system.

I refuse to condemn the greatest nation the world has ever seen in terms of freedom, prosperity, military power, and the protection of the rights of others simply because that nation isn't perfect.

I really don't assign malice to his motives.  I accept that he truly believes his position to be correct. 

Sometimes parents do something they believe to be in the best interests of their child and end up causing more harm than good.  That doesn't make them mean or evil; just wrong.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 25, 2011 12:48 PM (cbyrC)

I don't believe for an instant that his motives would matter at all if we did it his way.  The answer is to not do it his way.  Whether he's the crazy uncle in the corner or a PRC agent isn't really relevant until he starts wielding influence.  He doesn't, thank God. 

To answer your question:  Probably because I tend to default to the idea that an individual is good until proven otherwise.  I don't do that in every case, but it is an instinctual response for me.  I can't see into his heart and KNOW what he thinks or how he feels, but if one accepts the 'innocent until proven guilty' espoused by the United States (and I do), then it's hard NOT to think he's just ignorant.