Posted on 03/11/2012 11:27:31 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
That reminds me of another fishing show I used to watch! Hank Parker!
Oh, I forgot to say that according to Ohio papers Mitt took the Catholic vote even tho Rick is Catholic. In my personal talks with Catholics some are quite disturbed about Rick “almost throwing up over JFK’s speach on religion. Rick is a bit too intense for a lot of people. He comes off as a humorless putitan. That’s why Newt should have more appeal, IMHO. I still am baffled by Newt’s lack of resonance.
I don’t understand, beyond those of his religion, why people support Romney. How can anyone truly believe that the Presidency is like being a CEO?
Truth be known, Romney has never started a company from nothing, as many think. He has always had the wealth and influence of his father behind him.
As you say, he is also wrong on the issues.
I’m going to combine some posts from previous threads to say what I believe is going on:
There is a reason that Bush took on the fight in Iraq. The terrorists went to Iraq to fight us there because that’s where we were, and the choice of Iraq was a much better place than Afghanistan because both the politics of the region, the anger with Saddam Hussein and his atrocities, and the geographic lay of the land made it POSSIBLE to win the battle there. Nobody has ever won in Afghanistan, and we’re finding out all the reasons why.
When Obama took over we were winning in Iraq after proving the hard way (in blood, sweat, and tears) to the Iraqi people that they had to give up the sectarian and/or terrorist stuff and get on board with a western model where justice was sect-blind and basically secular. The terrorists were coming to us there and being defeated. What Obama did from the outset was tell the terrorists and Iran when we’d be leaving there and then moving our troops instead to the impossible scenario of Afghanistan (where Obama could accomplish the 3 objectives:
1. It bleeds out our patriotic troops, money, and ammunition.
2. It provides an opportunity for the Islamist media to use our troops to inflame the Islamists and provide an ultimate excuse for both Pakistan and Afghanistan to reverse their alliance with the US (based on Rumsfeld’s cooperate-or-become-a-glass-parking-lot ultimatum) and instead go full sharia - just like all the other ME countries the Obama regime has supported in their move from being non-sharia US allies to becoming Muslim Brotherhood/Salafist countries who are instituting sharia including annihilation of “infidels” such as Christians. The Egyptian ambassador said on Arab TV that Obama had privately told him (presumably in January of 2010) that he was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda. The Muslim agenda - which all branches of Islam agree on - is the destruction of the US and Israel and the institution of worldwide sharia.
3. It ensures that we don’t have enough troops to defend the homeland when the doo-doo hits the fan here - whether that is by black riots pushed by the union heads, by a Hezbollah/Hamas coup following an Iranian EMP attack, by riots following another run on the bank to collapse capitalism and the world economy, or by any other scenario. Obama has said different things that suggest he believes nobody can get him out of office. Which suggests to me that he intends there not to be a 2012 election if it looks like he won’t win it.
When Obama took over we had allies in the War on Terror in Kenya, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (among others). Every one of those have now been ceded to the Islamists.
The one country whose resistance Obama did NOT support was Iran. But then, they are already an Islamist sharia state that persecutes “infidels” such as Christians, and the regime was already well on its way to developing a nuclear weapon that would work great for getting the doo-doo to hit the fan in America so that the communist-Islamist coup could finally take place here (with no soldiers here to protect the Homeland).
Obama is owned by George Soros, who has publicly stated that he hopes the US loses the “war on terror” because that would weaken both America and capitalism - which Soros, who seriously believes he is God, has said are the 2 great evils he has to defeat. What’s going on right now is methodical, deliberate, and EVIL. The 2 enemies of the United States (which has always been built on a Judeo-Christian worldview) are joining forces to bring us down.
Gingrich should also mention that when he becomes POTUS he will re-evaluate the risk associated with muslim immigration into this country. He should also point out the many muslim-related problems encountered by countries in Europe.
How can the US possibly provide Islam with First Amendment protection when it has clearly stated, on several occasions, that it is Islam’s mission to subjugated the very religions that are protected by that same umbrella?
Whose side are we on? Islam’s?
If I remember correctly, Hank was the guy who always reminded me a little bit of Jeff Foxworthy. I may have him confused with another fishin’ dude.
That’s him.
It is hard to fight the smears of the MSM and opponents who lie nonstop. If Newt were to get fair exposure in the midst of the constant shilling by the media for Romney, I think he would be ahead now.
“Had we been prepared to “conquer” Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and more widely the Taliban, as we did Germany and Japan in World War II, U.S. presidential candidates would not be pondering this question today.”
During WWII the US had 16 million in uniform, about 10 percent of the then 160 million population, done partially using the draft.
The US nation no longer likes the draft, and prefers a high tech low manpower military, to mostly shield citizens from the reality of war, warfare.
Hence we fight wars as we did in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and get the results we observe.
In a few years, unless we stay and fight, both will probably revert to Islamic regimes, enemies of the US.
The mentality to bomb Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin and Tokyo, and nuke bomb Japan intending to kill civilians is the way wars get won and settled.
Half measures short of that leave matters unsettled, as we have done.
McCain is a total emigma and so are they in AZ who put him in the Senate time and time again. There are too many in this nation with a similar mindset.
No wonder that people like Bambi thrive in this country.
“After we leave, we are going to have rotatation in the stockpiles of arms and Afganistan is going to receive them. One at a time.”
Look, I agree with the rest of your original post. I’m just saying that if it stopped with the Taliban, it wouldn’t have been enough.
I agree with Newt. We’re not accomplishing a damn thing in Afghanistan, except getting good Americans killed under Obama’s suicidal rules of engagement.
Bring our people home!
Yup. It's time to cut and run.
What is the upside to staying? Especially with the ridiculous ROE that have been placed on our troops?
Afghanistan is the prime example of a topic discussed and made crystal clear here a week or so ago: Obama and Co. make their every decision detrimental to the US, beneficial to Islam, or both. That they never err and do something good for us shouts loud and clear that they are not stupid, but EVIL!
All 3 candidates need to state that this foreign policy must change.
“The US nation no longer likes the draft,”
That much is true.
“and prefers a high tech low manpower military, to mostly shield citizens from the reality of war, warfare.”
Using higher-tech arms is a consequence of budgets and a consequence of trying to protect our own troops, better- empowering them to fight with tools so that fewer of those who are doing the fighting get killed.
While a professional force and higher technology used in arms may make for greater firepower by fewer troops, the fact that more citizens are shielded from the reality of war is in part a consequence of those changes, and a consequence of the media; but more a consequence, a result non-the-less than a direct objective.
“Hence we fight wars as we did in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and get the results we observe”
The results we achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan are not inherently due to either the lack of a draft or more technology in military arms, but political decisions regarding the use of (and choices of) the capabilities we did have. There is nothing inherent in either having a professional force or the use of greater technology that dictated the amount of force we deployed or how we used it.
“The mentality to bomb Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin and Tokyo, and nuke bomb Japan intending to kill civilians is the way wars get won and settled.”
“The mentality” you are talking about was less a mentality of “oh, let’s bomb their civilians” as it was a mentality that stressed the importance of destroying the enemies offenses, and defenses even if that meant civilians would be located in large numbers in the areas targeted. That “mentality” also was depending on military technology which lacked today’s abilities for bombs and missiles to be targeted more precisely than they can be today.
But, in the general sense you are not wrong, even while targeting military targets can be done more precisely today. If you are truly engaged in actually winning a war, and not just playing at it with a policeman’s partiality of who are the criminals and who are the civilians, then, even with today’s modern means, winning, totally and completely will have to be the priority. Why? It shortens the conflict in the long run, which means over time there will actually be fewer casualties, military and civilian, in spite of individual incidents where the casualties of the moment will be high; because the war will not drag on and on.
Leaving Afghanistan in a state where the Taliban are not defeated will not end the war in Afghanistan, will not end civilian casualties there either. The war there will just go on (and on) without the U.S. participation on the ground (just as the “civil war” in Iraq continues today). By not totally waging war in Afghanistan, we have done them no favors. We will leave them with a government that cannot provide its people with security and will not be able to “defeat” the Taliban, even though with continued outside assistance it will likely also prevent a total takeover by the Taliban. In other words, the situations is likely to resemble the “status quo ante” for a long time to come.
We could have provided an Afghan coalition with the means to protect the “status quo ante” without the ten plus years of political-pretense that we were willing to deploy our power to achieve more.
Amen Newt.
Now if only he and Santorum could reach an accomodation that would put each in the other’s administration, and each drop out of the race in one state or another, different states, so that they both were “in the race” but Romney faced only one of them in each of the remaining states.
I could accept either one as POTUS or Veep, or I could take Santorum as POTUS and Newt as Sec State, or Newt as POTUS and Santorum as AG.
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree in general with what you say, except that I do not think that he is not a believing Muslim. His upbringing, university life, and later associations suggest rather that his beliefs are typically far left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.