...and that Botox is not available under Obamacare.
Posted on 08/31/2013 12:26:48 PM PDT by nathanbedford
Well, first off let me say that I fervently pray that it’s ITSHTF.
A line that is credited to I think Jeff Cooper is appropo “any gun will do so long as YOU will do.” That said, my choice would be neither. Get a .22LR instead. Keep in mind that food and water are usually the key issues. And you don’t want to be using a .308 for squirrels. Also, they’re quiet and don’t scare off game.
Homework assignment should you wish one: read the first few chapters of “the black book of communism.” Note how food has been used as a weapon.
What if the Liberals gave a war and no one came?
Maybe his “fumble” was intentional, just to knock “Benghazi” off the news.
Liberal Democrats believe anything they are told remember Clinton and his little war in Kosovo to distract from his scandal with Monica.
They believed everything he said “it was a humanitarian mission” to save the muslims.
Yet Bush spends a year putting together a coalition with the approval of the UN and congress , he is a warmonger...
“I agree but I am ashamed to admit that I have come to that conclusion late as one who was in support of the Iraq war and now realize that it was strategically impossible to bring democracy to a culture which is not ready for it.”
I remain in support of the initial phases of the second Iraq war. Taking out saddam was the right thing to do. Our mistake was in staying in Iraq more than 20 minutes after saddam was swinging from the end of a rope.
Saddam clearly had at least one variety of WMDs at his disposal and likely/possibly had the means to deliver them in the US. He was a dangerous psychopath and needed to be taken out in order to defend the American people. What I find odd is that it took so much arm twisting to get congress to buy off on it.
Good point! Benghazi and Snowden off prime time news.
Which is why not a single Republican voted for Obamacare.
I would contend that we have a “Progressive party” consisting of all Democrats, 98 percent of the MSM, and a significant number of Rinos that are either “progressive” at heart or deathly afraid of the MSM.
We have a “conservative party” consisting of a majority of Republicans with very little leadership and a chunk of new media.
Oh, don’t worry, the Rinos will save his a..s.
Which is why not a single Republican voted for Obamacare.
I would contend that we have a “Progressive party” consisting of all Democrats, 98 percent of the MSM, and a significant number of Rinos that are either “progressive” at heart or deathly afraid of the MSM.
We have a “conservative party” consisting of a majority of Republicans with very little leadership and a chunk of new media.
I would contend that I appreciate your 'double post'. It beared repeating.
Thank you marktwain.
...and that Botox is not available under Obamacare.
I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that we should not have attacked Iraq even though it is indisputable that at some time he had possessed and had used weapons of mass destruction (poison gas) and was advanced to some stage of attempting to manufacture the bomb. We seem to forget that his neighbor was doing the same thing but Iran was animated by a religious zealotry that makes it much more dangerous than Saddam. Our worry about Saddam was that once he acquired the bomb, he would hand it off to terrorists who might smuggle it to one of our harbors or across our Mexican border and detonate it in some populated area.
This is not an implausible scenario nor is it one to be underestimated. Can you imagine if a terrorist group, not easily identified with any particular country, managed to smuggle three or four atomic bombs into America and detonated one in a city. The terrorists then told America by way of the Internet that a second city would be destroyed within 10 days. Resistance to surrender would begin to crumble very fast. If a third city were destroyed, what would the mothers of America demand? So the idea of terrorists winning their jihad is not that far-fetched.
But I ask where is that threat more likely to be generated, in Iran or in Iraq under Saddam Hussein? I believe that Hussein was motivated by secular instincts although he was certainly capable of gross miscalculations and would clearly pander to Muslims as Muslims. Iran in its war against Iraq waged war in which children were used to clear mine fields which suggests to me that the Iranians were zealots who were simply ideologically blind to human tragedy and were quite likely to risk all in the service of Allah.
At the time we commenced the Iraq war, we were beginning to fade as an economic power and China was growing arithmetically if not geometrically. Our national debt was growing at least arithmetically. George Bush had at least two failings as president: first, I characterize him as a man of the white heart but an empty head who had no real conservative convictions and no true alliance to a Republican party because he despised party politics as something smarmy; second, George Bush was utterly profligate and incapable of curbing spending.
This latter weakness of Bush which was already apparent in domestic programs such as prescription drugs, became institutionalized as he traded off domestic spending in exchange for keeping the war in Iraq going against ever mounting resistance in Congress and with the people.
Bush's white heart and empty head causes him to believe in the inherent goodness of all peoples. I believe this profoundly influenced his stance on immigration in which he thought of his Mexican nanny and of his white man's burden. Similarly, I think Bush's Christian heart led him to believe that Iraq and Afghanistan could be democratized at acceptable levels of American blood and American treasure. His empty head did not understand that power might come from the barrel of a gun but democracy must come from the culture. Since the Muslim faith is a political system as well as a religious system, it cannot tolerate democracy. I fear that our present experiences in Egypt and Turkey are proving up this surmise.
At the end of the day in Iraq, we put a communist in the White House, he will let Iran get the bomb, he will accelerate George Bush's march toward bankruptcy, we will become a second-rate economic power and likely see our superpower status edged by China in a generation. Not all of this is directly attributable to Iraq but Iraq's contribution to the advances of radical Islam and to the decline of America can be traced to that war. Once started, we have seen how terribly difficult it is to stop it, to contain it, and to avoid unanticipated consequences.
One could plausibly argue that it was Iran who one the war in Iraq. They have insinuated themselves into the politics of that country. They have made themselves more secure against a strike by the US, and by extension by Israel, to interdict their building the bomb.
As and when Iran gets the bomb the entire balance of power in the Persian Gulf will be stood on its head. It will set off a race among all these Muslim states to get the bomb and that proliferation will be 1000 times more dangerous than Saddam Hussein in possession of the same bomb. The cost of oil will skyrocket.
news Toppling Saddam Hussein seems to have generated the "Arab Spring" movement which is apparently a euphemism for the spread of a populist but militant Islam from Pakistan to the shores of North Africa. We have seen one nation after another swallowed up by this movement and no one can say where it will end but few will predict that it will end well.
And just how much in lives and treasure did we spend to bring about this result?
Exactly, and for what?
Not a damn good thing came about from our misadventures in the Middle East.
We are still pals with the nation that gave us 9/11, Saudi Arabia.
“Like Carter, the damage this man will cause will plague us for a hundred years... if we’re lucky.”
You must be an optimist.
Isn’t it interesting how people who thoughtfully look at the same situation come to different conclusions?
I have come to the not at all reluctant conclusion that we were absolutely correct in attacking Iraq. Notwithstanding the economic impact on our country and the horrifying personal cost levied on our military members and the civilian population in Iraq. And I say that as one who has been in opposition to essentially every foreign policy adventure our country has embarked on in that region before or since. As I’ve previously indicated, the problem is that we did not leave after we accomplished the most important objective of the war: hanging saddam.
I think that your analysis of the use of weapons of mass destruction is a bit flawed in it’s premise. You note that it’s indisputable that at some time he (saddam) had possessed and had used weapons of mass destruction. I agree. You also note that he had poison gas and was advanced to some stage of attempting to manufacture the bomb. I agree as well. However what I believe you missed and where your premise goes astray is in failing to identify the WMD that posed the greatest threat to us as well as our allies: conventional bombs, and more specifically the bomb belts.
If you remember at the time, suicide bombers were detonating themselves on a more or less daily basis in Israel. What seems to have been been forgotten or at least not widely reported was how these suicide bombings largely stopped after we invaded Iraq. That was of course of great benefit to Israel. But it was also of great benefit to the U.S. Because it didn’t take a genius to figure out that it was coming here sooner rather than later.
It was widely believed that Iraq was providing the funding and support for the suicide bombers. And the bombing campaign was damnably effective. I don’t think we realize how bad it was getting for Israel. And this is a country that was used to terrorism. Can you imagine the impact on our economy and national psyche if all of a sudden we had extremists randomly detonating themselves in crowds in Indiana or California? That was clearly a threat and
GWB was absolutely correct to deal with saddam as he did. But again the mistake was in sticking around past the point where saddam had been dealt with.
As for Iran, they were clearly a beneficiary of the Iraq war. But that said, the risk was worth taking. You deal with the immediate threats and hope for the best. We clearly didn’t get the best and will end up having to live with the repercussions.
As to GWB, I don’t pretend to be able to look and see his inner convictions. I believe that the 2nd war with Iraq up until saddam’s end WAS in our best interests. All in all I view GWB’s presidency was a failed one with some moments of success. Contrast that with dear leader where it’s been a continuing and unmitigated disaster.
I think you’re correct in noting that at the end of the day we put a communist in the White House who will let Iran get the bomb and who has accomplished George W. Bush’s march toward bankruptcy. As for becoming a second-rate economic power, I think we can safely classify that as “Mission Accomplished.” As for our “superpower status”, you have to wonder if it’s even relevant given where the US is headed.
“Not a damn good thing came about from our misadventures in the Middle East.”
Makes you kind of wish we did steal all their oil like the liberals accused us of doing.
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.