[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
by Pat Buchanan
An article illustrating how the left is as clueless as the neocon right when it comes to combatting terrorism.
With Hillary Clinton’s lead growing, Barack Obama appears to be overreaching to keep the spotlight and highlight their differences.
His suggestion that sex education begin in kindergarten seems a great leap forward even for a liberal Democrat. While Barack says it must be “age-appropriate” sex education, one need not be Roger Ailes to imagine what the GOP oppo-research boys can do with this one.
In the CNN-You Tube debate, Barack, asked if he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Iran and North Korea in his first year as president “without precondition,” blurted yes.
Should he get the nomination, imagine an ad twinning photos of Obama and Fidel (or brother Raoul), Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, titled, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner at Barack’s House?”
At the Woodrow Wilson Center on Wednesday, Barack attacked Hillary from both flanks. By giving Bush a blank check for war, said Barack, with Clinton in mind, “Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war.”
Then, Barack stepped smartly to his right and assumed the stance of tough-minded realist who opposes the Iraq war because he wants to fight the real war, against al-Qaida and Islamic terrorists. Obama pledged to send 7,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan and, if Pakistan does not go after al-Qaida in its border provinces, to slash U.S. aid and send in U.S. troops to chase down the terrorists.
…
After half a decade of fighting in the Islamic world, has not the lesson sunk in with the hawks of both parties? U.S. troops in an Arab or Muslim country are more likely to create an insurgency than quell one.
The solution is to bomb 'em all. You don’t go hunting cockroaches one at a time — you fucking bug bomb 'em.
Iran should be a prarie by now, where we let a few buffalo roam. Damnned Jimmy Carter…
Yes, bomb them all, take no prisoners, don’t play the nation-building/policing game. I know what you’re saying.
But…what happens if you miss a few?
You’ve heard that medical analogy about antibiotics and how they kill off 99.9% of known bacteria, but the .01% that surives goes on to produce a stronger generation of microphobes?
Well, I think that’s very applicable to this scenario.
You have to realize that in today’s PC world, we’re not going to get another Patton or MacArthur in the military. We’re not going to be flattening the Middle East anytime soon. Everything would be televised. The media would have a field day. The public wouldn’t stand for it.
So the only military option available to us is this ridiculous nation building crap that tries to make police officers out of soldiers.
It won’t work. It can’t.
That’s why we’re better off cutting our loses now and not getting entangled in this mess.
Ron Paul is the strongest candidate on national security. He would pull the U.S. out of all the conflicts in which we can’t win (Iraq, Serbia, etc), and in the case of a real, identifiable threat to the U.S., he would use precisely the kinds of tactics which you describe for dealing with our enemies.
Remember, in the debate, he said, “Declare war if it’s necessary, go to war and win it, but don’t get involved in the rest of this nonsense” (loosely paraphrased). He made the point that since WWII, we’ve neither declared nor truly won a war. That’s not the way to go about it.
I think a lot of people underestimate the “teeth” in Ron Paul’s defense policy. I hope he will rectify this in future debates. He is no dove. He simply wants a strong national defense instead of a hamstrung national offense.
Granted, the latter has been shown to work, historically, but only if you are willing to use the methods of Genghis Khan or Attila. We shouldn’t kid ourselves. It will take another major attack on American soil before those methods are once again endorsed by a majority of the public.
We might be able to avoid such an attack through the combination of securing our borders and no longer fanning the flames of hatred in the ME.[/quote]
The problem with winning a war and then ‘not getting involved’ would have left Goering in charge in Germany. Who would run Japan today?
I say: shock and awe like a MOTHERFUCKER!! These cretins leave you alone if they know they’ll be absolutely hammered if they so much as fucking blink in our direction. Trying to be PC for all the soccer moms and libs just gets people dead, usually a soldier or Marine. Of course, libs don’t really give a rat’s ass about that, unless they can use it to get elected.