PDA

View Full Version : Gangster regimes of the world.......



TXduckdog
10-06-2009, 07:23 PM
Very interesting take on the current geo-political situation.

Caution.....this may cause you to not sleep very well for a few days.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/lose_afghanistan_lose_pakistan.html

Franco
10-06-2009, 07:55 PM
Excellent article!

The current administration thinks they can maintain peace through being nice and apologizing to the gangsters of the world.

Those that learned a lesson in the early 1940's know that the way to maintain the peace is through deterence or Peace Through Strength. Something our Community Organizer President has no concept of. Obama's understanding of the world is that of Rev Wright where America is the evil.

I'll also ad that the Isralis know they can no longer count on us. That Obama is more apt to side with his Islamic brethern than with a free people.

The American people could not have elected a more incompetant President. This President lacks knowledge, substance and resolve. World leaders have already recognized that he an empty suit that is always campaigning and can not lead.

YardleyLabs
10-06-2009, 08:21 PM
For six years of the Bush administration the neocons held sway. The neocons lost their influence in the Bush White house because every one of their predictions and strategies failed miserably to achieve any of the promised results.

I see no reason to revisit something that has failed so clearly. We do not have the power economically or militarily to impose our will on the world without very strong alliances. Those alliances cannot be forged through bombast and threats. They can only be forged through common purpose. That means listening respectfully at least as much as we talk. That is not a message of weakness, it is a pathway to strength. The neocon road is simply a well greased slide into obscurity at best and devastation at worst.

Franco
10-06-2009, 08:32 PM
Yardley, are you the reincarnation of Nevelle Chamberlin?

YardleyLabs
10-06-2009, 08:41 PM
Yardley, are you the reincarnation of Nevelle Chamberlin?
No Franco. Are you the incarnation of Mussolini?

Franco
10-06-2009, 09:15 PM
I not much on eating meatballs and spagetti.

There is only one path to peace and that is through strength and not appeasement.

No one is going to take care of us but, us. That is the reality of the world.

Sitting down and trying to work out difference is fine until one realizes that the other person at the table is not capable of rational thought.

We are either men or mice.

Men live like men and mice ...

YardleyLabs
10-06-2009, 10:05 PM
Somewhere in the process of emerging from adolescence, most men realize that life lived from fight to fight is generally short lived and that those who always use their power to impose their will are bullies deserving to be put down hard. I've never seen a reason to tolerate bullies, and as I've noted before I am not a pacifist. I see even less reason to be a bully.

In my book, a man takes care of his own responsibilities to the best of his ability, cleans up his own messes, and lends a helping hand to those in need. He doesn't exploit others or put them down just because he can. The world of countries is a little more complicated than the world of men. However, even at its crudest, the secret of dealing successfully with other countries hinges on understanding the true extent of your power. Even the strongest country will be destroyed if it overextends itself.

It is also essential to understand that there is nothing more dangerous than those with nothing to lose. Those people either have to be annihilated or, more appropriately, built up to the point where they do have something to lose and by extension something to live for.

For America there will be some difficult transitions. On a long term basis, the rest of the world will not support our debt. On a long term basis, the rest of the world will compete with us for the world's resources and will not tolerate a wildly disproportionate share of those resources going to us if that means that their own people cannot enjoy similar comforts. Technology will hopefully soften the transition to a truly global economy. But shoving our heads in the sand, or believing that "real men" could continue to rule the world and its resources without regard to impact will not work.

Our own free economic model guarantees that wages will be paid where labor is cheapest following adjustments for productivity and that capital will be invested where it returns the greatest profit. Walls around our borders will not keep capital or jobs inside. The failure of the neocons rests in their belief that our power is effectively unlimited if we have the will -- a gross overestimate -- and that the rest of the world will go along with what we want whether or not it is consistent with their own needs -- a gross underestimate. However, like arguments of faith, the neocons always have their ultimate defense. We would have been right if only we had been willing to fight to the end. All failure of force can be blamed on lack of will by the weaklings and the appeasers.

TXduckdog
10-06-2009, 10:10 PM
For six years of the Bush administration the neocons held sway. The neocons lost their influence in the Bush White house because every one of their predictions and strategies failed miserably to achieve any of the promised results.

I see no reason to revisit something that has failed so clearly. We do not have the power economically or militarily to impose our will on the world without very strong alliances. Those alliances cannot be forged through bombast and threats. They can only be forged through common purpose. That means listening respectfully at least as much as we talk. That is not a message of weakness, it is a pathway to strength. The neocon road is simply a well greased slide into obscurity at best and devastation at worst.


Man are you naive. Common purpose.....they want our blood, Yardley.

Remember "Tear down that wall...Peace through strength"?

These folks are serious poker players in the international arena....they can smell a bluff from a mile away. Obama is not just a bluffer.....he's a clueless bluffer.

Franco
10-06-2009, 10:25 PM
Jeff, where have I ever advocated being the world bully?

I'm talking about standing up for what is right. Standing up and taking the right actions no matter how unpopular.

To sit and talk when those that want us dead are acquiring the weapons to do so is suicide.

Iran's nuclear ambitions must be stopped now!

Julie R.
10-06-2009, 11:44 PM
Yes, it's nice to know Obongo is making so many friends abroad. I'm sure the British thought it was cool how clubby he and his wife were with the Queen, and I'm sure she made use of that iPod of his speeches he gave her. Here's an interesting editorial from the U.K. that illustrates very well what our allies think of his reign:

Barak Obama and the CIA: Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.
Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.
That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley , Virginia to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers.
Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.
So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.
President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cozying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realized, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners.
His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
__________________

Bruce MacPherson
10-07-2009, 12:28 AM
Somewhere in the process of emerging from adolescence, most men realize that life lived from fight to fight is generally short lived and that those who always use their power to impose their will are bullies deserving to be put down hard. I've never seen a reason to tolerate bullies, and as I've noted before I am not a pacifist. I see even less reason to be a bully.

In my book, a man takes care of his own responsibilities to the best of his ability, cleans up his own messes, and lends a helping hand to those in need. He doesn't exploit others or put them down just because he can. The world of countries is a little more complicated than the world of men. However, even at its crudest, the secret of dealing successfully with other countries hinges on understanding the true extent of your power. Even the strongest country will be destroyed if it overextends itself.

It is also essential to understand that there is nothing more dangerous than those with nothing to lose. Those people either have to be annihilated or, more appropriately, built up to the point where they do have something to lose and by extension something to live for.

For America there will be some difficult transitions. On a long term basis, the rest of the world will not support our debt. On a long term basis, the rest of the world will compete with us for the world's resources and will not tolerate a wildly disproportionate share of those resources going to us if that means that their own people cannot enjoy similar comforts. Technology will hopefully soften the transition to a truly global economy. But shoving our heads in the sand, or believing that "real men" could continue to rule the world and its resources without regard to impact will not work.

Our own free economic model guarantees that wages will be paid where labor is cheapest following adjustments for productivity and that capital will be invested where it returns the greatest profit. Walls around our borders will not keep capital or jobs inside. The failure of the neocons rests in their belief that our power is effectively unlimited if we have the will -- a gross overestimate -- and that the rest of the world will go along with what we want whether or not it is consistent with their own needs -- a gross underestimate. However, like arguments of faith, the neocons always have their ultimate defense. We would have been right if only we had been willing to fight to the end. All failure of force can be blamed on lack of will by the weaklings and the appeasers.

When everything else is gone there is only one thing that will determine survival, will. Those that have it will triumph those that don't will perish. It is really that simple.

Hew
10-07-2009, 10:12 AM
For six years of the Bush administration the neocons held sway. The neocons lost their influence in the Bush White house because every one of their predictions and strategies failed miserably to achieve any of the promised results.
"Neocon" is a convenient slur that most liberals reflexively parrot without having the foggiest idea what it means (Yardley excluded). Search the term on this site and you'll find a who's who of POTUS Place liberaldom jabbering about Bush "neocon" economic policies, Bush neocons and FEMA aid, the neocons ruining the environment, blah, blah, blah. But I digress...

Neoconservatism, as it is commonly defined today, is the projection of American power to protect American interests. It advocates an active and involved foreign policy. In a nutshell, the policy is, "if necessary, do unto others before they do unto you." Wow! That's a reckless and crazy foreign policy. :rolleyes:

Far from being debunked, it has a proven track record. Under various banners, the tenets of neoconservatism have been invoked by both republican and democrat presidents. Ask the Serbs and Bosniacs (apologies to JoJo Biden) if they thought the bombs rained on their heads by Clinton were agressively projecting American power or not. Obama's been in office and we're still in Iraq and Gitmo's still running. A neocon by any other name.... The door on killing bin Laden in A-stan long ago closed yet Obama is upping the ante in A-Stan. If that's not the epitome of neconservative policy I don't know what is.