Skip to comments.War Was Interested in Obama
Posted on 06/16/2014 6:56:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFindEdited on 06/16/2014 7:19:34 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Leon Trotsky probably did not quite write the legendary aphorism that “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” But whoever did, you get the point that no nation can always pick and choose when it wishes to be left alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I guess he earned that Peace Prize.
The world is in total Chaos.
The bad guys knew that Nobel peace prize boy wouldn’t do anything to stop them. He’s too busy fundraising and pimping global warming. (It’s summer).
Those that bombed the Pentagon and America on 911
now run it.
They won, because the EXEMPT treasonous US Congress
was, and REMAINS, more interested in making money
using unConstitutional Laws they pass ... only for others.
Politicians are really dangerous when they begin to believe their own lies. Delusions do not lead to effective policies.
It’s not Obama’s fault.
He is the victim.
It’s the inconsiderate advisors and news media who are to blame here.
When Obama declared that the War On Terror was over no one bothered to tell him that the other side hadn’t stopped fighting.
If he had read about it in the newspapers or saw it on TV he might have been able to do something about it.
Why should they bother themselves with foreign affairs when there’re Chamber of Low Wages campaign donations to worry about?
Funny how that works.
Like Churchill told Chamberlain after Munich, “You were given a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.”
Well, and timely said.
0bama is just like Bergdahl he’s in the wrong job. Both of them should have joined the Peace Corpse and when the going got tough both of them deserted their posts and got people killed for it.
BH0 is the anti-Reagan ... War Through Weakness (aka Weakness Invites Aggression) ... rather than Peace Through Strength ...
The truth is we lost the "war on terror" years ago.
As a side note, I hear liberals blaming the unrest in Iraq on Bush. They say we shouldn’t have been in Iraq in the first place, and that Saddam kept the country under control.
They may admit that Saddam was a ruthless dictator and a threat to world peace, but then go on to say that he kept the factions in Iraq under control.
So what we see is that in the Obama Era, nothing can be blamed on the policies or actions of Obama. Every president inherits the world situation as it is, and has to take steps to deal with the situation. But Obama just can’t be blamed for how he dealt with the situation he inherited in Iraq.
So liberals and the media will say that Bush should never have gotten us involved there, so that whatever happens now cannot be blamed on Obama’s policies in Iraq.
Yep, that’s the way to sum up VDH’s latest, “Obama declares Peace For Our Time.”
Cue George Santayana.
Obama is from the Jane Fonda wing of the marxist party.
Then blame Carter. He is the biggest reason why the middle east is a mess to begin with. Carter started most of the problems.
You’re right. Following liberal criteria, we should go back and blame Carter for the roots of middle east problems, dating back to Carter’s days as president.
Fair enough if we follow the liberal need to assess blame.
If they think a CIA stooge ruthless dictator should have remained in power in Iraq, it explains why they reelected Emperor Zero.
Bottom line is if you thought a ruthless dictator could only hold Iraq together, then you should have been for partitioning the country after Saddam was removed. Some of us were for that very scenario.
The bitter irony in all that was that Carter had betrayed the Shah of Iran, a longtime U.S. ally, and thereby paved the way for the ascent to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian mullahcracy that has ruled Iran ever since. Rather than feel gratitude toward Carter, however, Khomeini viewed his abandonment of the Shah as a sign of weakness, and pressed forward with his jihad against the Great Satan.
Trotsky was a very unlikely fellow to rebuild the Red Army but he did a creditable job, which Stalin promptly undid through purge, but that is a separate issue. Fascinating fellow. His own life was an exemplar of the futility of communism and he never even saw it.
This business of the world being more peaceful - it is the peace of the grave, or as Marx defined it, "the absence of opposition to socialism". In this case, militant Islam. What I find baffling is the persistent illusion among the America haters that if only we'd cease military activity the world would settle into some sort of peace stasis, which is, after all, contrary to the most superficial reading of every history book on the shelf (except perhaps for Howard Zinn's, which is a disaster all unto itself). Less involvement? Fine, how's that working out for you?
Ah, if only it were only that. Because what we actually have is not lack of engagement, but engagement on the covert, deniable level that is more the activity of giggling children in a secret club than a serious attempt at policy. And the weapons, and the blood, are real. And so the policy's principal aim is good for the country only insofar as it supports the aims of a political party, and its principal metric of success is not the attainment of any foreign policy goal, but the ability to blame someone else when the thing falls apart. This is the work of amateurs, dilettantes, personified by the two most ridiculously unqualified Secretaries of State in the country's history in Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and headed up by a chief executive with no foreign policy experience whatever, either when he took office or now, nearly six unendurable years later. There is no quick fix for this short of a wave of change in Congress that results in serious cutting of funding that will be redirected precisely as foreign policy has been: to the advantage of the Democrat party and the ability to blame someone else. And frankly I don't see enough courage in Congress even to begin contemplating it.