Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't believe Obama has the balls to be President...
Face it...He can't make the hard decisions...but he sure can suck-hole..
The EU should handle it, but they won't; and, since if we don't find and help a faction of the rebellion we can work with the likelyhood of them becoming an even bigger terrorist state looms large... it's also in OUR interest. To be sure NATO should act as a whole as its in ALL OF OUR interests.I don't believe Obama has the balls to be President...
Face it...He can't make the hard decisions...but he sure can suck-hole..
As he left the problem of LIBYA to whom?
Nicolas Sarkozy calls for air strikes on Libya if Gaddafi attacks civilians
Why shouldn't the Europeans handle this? It's in their sphere of influence. They have economic interests in Libya as well as cultural and historic ties, not the US. Why should the US always bear the costs of being the global policeman?
I don't believe Obama has the balls to be President...
Face it...He can't make the hard decisions...but he sure can suck-hole..
You think the President is powerless ta affect change in our interest where change is already happenning?I don't believe Obama has the balls to be President...
Face it...He can't make the hard decisions...but he sure can suck-hole..
I cannot know if he's gutless.
I can certainly see that he's powerless to change much though.
POTUS does not equal KING, folks.
Ah what heck, Boed - let's look at GDP growth as well.
Last quarter of measured growth at this point in the Reagan administration would be q4 1982.
Check the BEA? .3% growth! That's 1/3 of 1 percent growth.
oops.
The EU should handle it, but they won't; and, since if we don't find and help a faction of the rebellion we can work with the likelyhood of them becoming an even bigger terrorist state looms large... it's also in OUR interest. To be sure NATO should act as a whole as its in ALL OF OUR interests.
You are certainly free to ascertain for yourself what our interest actually is; however, your assertion that the rebels are more fundimentalist is nothing more than a throw away excuse line. There is absolutely nop proof that they are, and there is some evedence that they are not. Fundimentalist Islamists would NOT be asking for UN, NATO or US help, they would be demanding we stay out of it while they asked for a Jihad.The EU should handle it, but they won't; and, since if we don't find and help a faction of the rebellion we can work with the likelyhood of them becoming an even bigger terrorist state looms large... it's also in OUR interest. To be sure NATO should act as a whole as its in ALL OF OUR interests.
I'm not sure if it is in our interests. Gaddafi had been working with the West. He was supplying intelligence on al-Qaeda and other fundamental extremists. His sons have extensive ties to the west. Bush held Libya out as an example to the Arab world of a nation that co-operated with us. The rebels in the east are more fundamentalist and are hostile to Westerners. And what if we intervene and Gaddafi holds onto power? What then? Gaddafi used to fund all sorts of anti-Western groups.
Gaddafi is a brutal nutter, no doubt. And from a humanitarian standpoint, I want to see him gone. But its not so cut and dry whether or not it is in our interests to intervene.
No matter how many times you leftist morons try to connect the rescue of the American students in grenada from Castro's thugs to middle eastern terrorism perpetated by your freinds in hezbollah saying it won't make it so.Had it been Reagan? Kaddafi would be dead or in custody.
Really?..... Like he did Iran for taking our people hostages? Like he kicked ass for the Marine barracks bombing? Oh..that's right ..He invaded Granada!!!!
The myth of Ronnie the tough guy lives on...
You are funny. You should have posted that reply in the humor forum.
Yeah, because a republican would claim rescuing American students from castro's goons in granada was a response to the Iranian foreign legion's terrorist bombing in beiruit and laugh derisively at what was a defining moment in our victory over communism in the cold war.No matter how many times you leftist morons try to connect the rescue of the American students in grenada from Castro's thugs to middle eastern terrorism perpetated by your freinds in hezbollah saying it won't make it so.Really?..... Like he did Iran for taking our people hostages? Like he kicked ass for the Marine barracks bombing? Oh..that's right ..He invaded Granada!!!!
The myth of Ronnie the tough guy lives on...
You are funny. You should have posted that reply in the humor forum.
Dumb ass. I am not a leftist anything. I have been a republican a lot longer than you have been on this planet and certainly a lot longer than Reagan was. I was never a member of the democratic party unlike that stooge.
Yeah, because a republican would claim rescuing American students from castro's goons in granada was a response to the Iranian foreign legion's terrorist bombing in beiruit and laugh derisively at what was a defining moment in our victory over communism in the cold war.No matter how many times you leftist morons try to connect the rescue of the American students in grenada from Castro's thugs to middle eastern terrorism perpetated by your freinds in hezbollah saying it won't make it so.
Dumb ass. I am not a leftist anything. I have been a republican a lot longer than you have been on this planet and certainly a lot longer than Reagan was. I was never a member of the democratic party unlike that stooge.
I've been a Republican my entire adult life, registered that way on my 18th birthday back in 1980.
I form my own opinions based on facts as they exist, not by following other peoples opinions, which is a decidedly liberal trait. Why would any conservative have to find someone else to think for them? I have no idea who Friedman and Stratfor even are, but I will take it on assumption that you are one of those who would be more at home in the liber(al)tarian party or some other 3P whack job 2%er assembly.Ben
The thinking I have given you is the thinking of George Friedman at Stratfor. If you think he's a "leftist idiot" then you're just a typical conservatard.
I form my own opinions based on facts as they exist, not by following other peoples opinions, which is a decidedly liberal trait. Why would any conservative have to find someone else to think for them? I have no idea who Friedman and Stratfor even are, but I will take it on assumption that you are one of those who would be more at home in the liber(al)tarian party or some other 3P whack job 2%er assembly.Ben
The thinking I have given you is the thinking of George Friedman at Stratfor. If you think he's a "leftist idiot" then you're just a typical conservatard.
I am a conservative establishment sort of guy. I am not one of those whacked out "constitutionalists" who don't seem to be able to do the logical reasoning neccesary to ascertain that there are powers in the constitution that are inherent based on the authority and responsiblity of the government without which the government would have no real authority at all, nor would it have the ability to carry out its responsibilities. Niether am I one of the libroidal idiots who believe the government can do anything its not frorbidden to do (because in reality, it is frobidden to do them). We are not tha backwater rural country of farmers we were when washington was president with no interests outside our borders, we are the greatest power on earth and have myriad interests outside our borders. How we see to those interests is an issue, refusing to see to them is just plain dumb.
oooh, he said neoconservativeI form my own opinions based on facts as they exist, not by following other peoples opinions, which is a decidedly liberal trait. Why would any conservative have to find someone else to think for them? I have no idea who Friedman and Stratfor even are, but I will take it on assumption that you are one of those who would be more at home in the liber(al)tarian party or some other 3P whack job 2%er assembly.Ben
The thinking I have given you is the thinking of George Friedman at Stratfor. If you think he's a "leftist idiot" then you're just a typical conservatard.
I am a conservative establishment sort of guy. I am not one of those whacked out "constitutionalists" who don't seem to be able to do the logical reasoning neccesary to ascertain that there are powers in the constitution that are inherent based on the authority and responsiblity of the government without which the government would have no real authority at all, nor would it have the ability to carry out its responsibilities. Niether am I one of the libroidal idiots who believe the government can do anything its not frorbidden to do (because in reality, it is frobidden to do them). We are not tha backwater rural country of farmers we were when washington was president with no interests outside our borders, we are the greatest power on earth and have myriad interests outside our borders. How we see to those interests is an issue, refusing to see to them is just plain dumb.
Sounds like you are more of a neoconservative than a conservative.
Stupid canard. So were all the morons who created every mess we've ever been in because we did trhe wrong thing, and every mess we ever ended up in because we did nothing. You don't need to be an "expert" in geopolitics to have an informed opinion, all you need are the relevant facts, and hopefully some common sence and the ability to game out possible scenarios based on the best information you have. Isn't freuidman a writer of some sort? That he has an informed opinion does not make him any more of an expert that anyone else, and it wouldn't make him neccesarily right if he were.Why would anyone let someone do their thinking for them? Well, good question. I am guessing you are not an expert on geopolitics. I am not, though I have an interest. However, Friedman - a conservative - is.
What I dismissed as leftists idiocy was your claim that rescuing the American students in Granada was a response to the Iranian foreign legions attack in Beiruit... and that is leftist idiocy. What I dismissed as leftists idiocy was your assertion that Reagan's speech where he challenged Mr Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" was anything but the seminal moment it was. He positioned Gorbachev on the wrong side of the wall and his speech led directly not only to its tearing down but of lots of other less metaphorical walls seperating us being torn down.I'm not going to swallow whole anything from anyone, but I do recognize that some have expertise that I do not. And if someone is far better schooled than I am, then I am going to respect his opinion. That is especially true if some has been right in the past. I have been a subscriber to Stratfor often and on for over a decade, and their track record of analysis has been far more accurate than what you get in the MSM. So when Friedman says "This is what is happening in Libya and this is how it affects US policy," then I'm going to pay heed to what he says given how good he has been in the past. And I'm certainly going to take his opinion over someone who reflexively and ignorantly dismisses differing opinions as "leftist idiocy," especially when the source comes from a knowledgeable conservative.
as some sort of derisive statement identifies you as one of the moronic "furster" crowd who claim to be "constitutionalists" but have no ability to logically reason what it actually says. Nonintervention will not isolate us from attack. Furster talking points do not make up any kind of foriegn policy and not having a foreign policy is not a foreign policy. And, the inane mommy logic of thinking if we leave them alone they'll leave us a lone is as inane geopolitically as it is for little Billy when the badassed kids are taking his lunch money.
Leave him alone.
He took a stand on school bullying.
OH GEE THANKS I CAN SLEEP SOUNDLY TO NIGHT KNOWING THAT HOMELAND SECURITY HAS TAKEN A STAND AGAINST HIGH SCHOOL BULLIES.
So were all the morons who created every mess we've ever been in because we did trhe wrong thing, and every mess we ever ended up in because we did nothing. You don't need to be an "expert" in geopolitics to have an informed opinion, all you need are the relevant facts, and hopefully some common sence and the ability to game out possible scenarios based on the best information you have. Isn't freuidman a writer of some sort? That he has an informed opinion does not make him any more of an expert that anyone else, and it wouldn't make him neccesarily right if he were.
What I dismissed as leftists idiocy was your claim that rescuing the American students in Granada was a response to the Iranian foreign legions attack in Beiruit... and that is leftist idiocy. What I dismissed as leftists idiocy was your assertion that Reagan's speech where he challenged Mr Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" was anything but the seminal moment it was. He positioned Gorbachev on the wrong side of the wall and his speech led directly not only to its tearing down but of lots of other less metaphorical walls seperating us being torn down.
Your use of the term "neo-con"
When Washington was President we had no interests outside our own borders... we do now. Our country has grown up and our foriegn policy needs to reflect that by being grown up.
Yep, Iraq is a success story, and the libs are sickened by it!!!!
Yeah... some "expert"So were all the morons who created every mess we've ever been in because we did trhe wrong thing, and every mess we ever ended up in because we did nothing. You don't need to be an "expert" in geopolitics to have an informed opinion, all you need are the relevant facts, and hopefully some common sence and the ability to game out possible scenarios based on the best information you have. Isn't freuidman a writer of some sort? That he has an informed opinion does not make him any more of an expert that anyone else, and it wouldn't make him neccesarily right if he were.
Some of that is likely true, for instance it is likely that Muslim states will stamp out radical Islam, but it won't be because they remain "stable" (what a joke--guess he fucked that one up), it will be because the Bush doctrine is correct. Liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences over radicalism known to man. So in the end he's "right" but thats only because he's wrong in the beginning.Friedman does not pander to his readers’ prejudice. The Next 100 Years dismisses the stuff of scare scenarios—Islam taking over Europe, China confronting the United States, a failed Mexican state dumping its surplus millions over the American border—and offers an idiosyncratic vision that will leave most readers confused. Forget Russia and China, Friedman insists: they will collapse of their own weight during the next generation. The great powers of the future are Japan, Turkey, Mexico, and Poland. The great crisis of the mid-21st century, he believes, will be a war between the United States and a fearsome Turkish-Japanese alliance.It’s old-fashioned geopolitics doped with some eyebrow-raising professorial assumptions. China, India, and Russia will fail as states, while the Muslim states will remain stable enough to crush radical Islam. And Poland will arise as Europe’s major power.“Poland hasn’t been a great power since the sixteenth century,” he wrote. “But once it was—and, I think, will be again.”
BTW, as far as I can tell he's also not "CIA" (though I haven't read a lot yet)l, he's a fucking dumbassed acedemic who fancies himself an expert and created a "shadow CIA" made up of ex opperative malcontents, who were likely the same leftist idiots who leak information when they want to illegally effect policy.
He hasn't spent any carreer in intelligence as far as I can tell, he's was a fucking college professor with a hobby in geopolitics he turned into a business catering to...Actually, it does make him more of an expert than anyone else. If you spend your career in intelligence and geopolitical analysis, your opinion is worth more than others. How very "relativist" of you to say otherwise. Usually, that type of relativist thinking comes from the left, not the right. That doesn't mean he is always correct, far from it. But it makes him far more equipped to proffer an informed opinion than you. Or me.Corporate types with geopolitical exposure who are too busy or too ill-informed to use Google.
Not according to anything I've read. In fact the article makes a point of saying he's better equipped to make an informed choice because he's not a "cubicle bound" analyst with a cookie cutter.Friedman worked in the CIA. This is Stratfor. Stratfor provides far more of the "relevant facts" needed to offer an informed opinion. If you don't have the relevant facts, your opinion isn't informed. It is well worth the money.
You're right, that was Huggy. My bad.What I dismissed as leftists idiocy was your claim that rescuing the American students in Granada was a response to the Iranian foreign legions attack in Beiruit... and that is leftist idiocy. What I dismissed as leftists idiocy was your assertion that Reagan's speech where he challenged Mr Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" was anything but the seminal moment it was. He positioned Gorbachev on the wrong side of the wall and his speech led directly not only to its tearing down but of lots of other less metaphorical walls seperating us being torn down.
I never said anything about Grenada, Reagan or Gorbachev.
Completely false, the willingness to put some action behind our policy is what will keep us out of bigger wars. Am I willing to chance using US air assets and advisors to help the anti Khadaffy forces and at least make an attempt to influence the direction the country takes post Khadaffy away from Islamist extremism? Yeah, because doing nothing will almost ensure it goes that way after Khadaffy's gone.Your use of the term "neo-con"
When Washington was President we had no interests outside our own borders... we do now. Our country has grown up and our foriegn policy needs to reflect that by being grown up.
No, I use the term "neoconservative" because neoconservatives are far more likely to use American power abroad than conservatives, which is what you are arguing.
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/25811/mcstrategy/
forgot the link!
