WHAT THE HELL IS OBAMA DOING????

[christo-f]

And there it is, you now have public health care (OMG, socialism, FEMA death camps and lizard people!!). One Obama promise done, to a degree.

 

Now, the Iraq election has been held, watch for the troops to begin a phased withdrawal.

[russell jones]

And there it is, you now have public health care (OMG, socialism, FEMA death camps and lizard people!!). One Obama promise done, to a degree.

 

Now, the Iraq election has been held, watch for the troops to begin a phased withdrawal.

 

 

Lizard people aren't covered in the new plan... unless they become American Citizens.

[Seph]

I didn't see any lizard aliens at the immigration march in D.C. :(

[cunt sauce]

Hovering in the shadows of President Barack Obama's decision last week to ramp up the nation's war effort in Afghanistan, even as he promises to bring it to a swift conclusion, are ghosts of another decision, made 44 years ago by a Texan in the White House.

 

In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson took ownership of a war he, like Obama, had inherited. Gen. William Westmoreland wanted more troops in Vietnam, and after a protracted debate within the White House, Johnson sent them.

 

Over the next three years, he would send hundreds of thousands more and launch a carpet-bombing campaign against North Vietnam. Johnson's presidency – and many argue, Johnson himself – were destroyed long before America could finally, 10 years later, quit Vietnam.

 

Obama's decision to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan has reawakened those memories of Vietnam's early days, and brought unsettling comparisons from an array of historians who have spent their careers studying Johnson.

[twonpoo]

If you knew how hard it is for someone even from a wealthy background to get in here legally you might understand why people don't always go the legal route.

I'm just not sure what the issue is, they broke a law and therefore can be singled out as not deserving anything besides hate.

I could see if the vast majority of illegals here didn't come here to work and I'm sure there might be rare examples of illegals like that.

Fact is, there are illegals here, a lot of them working under forged papers, paying taxes.

Another fact is there are tons of Americans not contributing to our country also.

 

A good way to Unite people behind a political cause is the whole "it's us against them" argument.

Generally, an illegal being here does nothing to inconvenience you in the slightest bit.

Again, I'm sure you could dredge up some bullshit reason why they do, just like you could dredge up reasons why they are a benefit.

As far as this health care shit goes, I bet less than .01% of your tax money would ever go towards saving an illegal immigrants life or health here.

I'm all for saving every penny possible but why focus your platform on such minute bullshit when there is so much other waste?

 

 

Again, my question is, why is this a major issue with Neocons?

 

I think it's a distraction that holds us back from focusing on more important issues.

Like why are people who sodomised little boys in front of their mothers in Iraq not in jail being sodomised.

Why do we no longer have most of the constitutional protections of our rights in place?

Why are we wasting trillions protecting a fragile government in Iraq that isn't capable of protecting itself?

Why is our infrastructure still being based on cheap oil and automobiles when that shit is running out a generation or two down the road?

Why are our schools laughed at by other countries even with generally less income per person?

 

 

Every time I hear someone bring up illegal immigration I feel they are probably less of an asset and not worthy of living here themselves.

Like sheep to be gently placed into a false sense of complacency as the shepherds point out new members of the flock to be upset about.

"Look at them, they're eating grass and planning on eating more of you're grass, for shame"

All the while their rights are being prepared for slaughter and future being sold for profit.

Enjoy your meaningless issue.

 

 

hell yea, well said Mercer

[christo-f]

Hovering in the shadows of President Barack Obama's decision last week to ramp up the nation's war effort in Afghanistan, even as he promises to bring it to a swift conclusion, are ghosts of another decision, made 44 years ago by a Texan in the White House.

 

In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson took ownership of a war he, like Obama, had inherited. Gen. William Westmoreland wanted more troops in Vietnam, and after a protracted debate within the White House, Johnson sent them.

 

Over the next three years, he would send hundreds of thousands more and launch a carpet-bombing campaign against North Vietnam. Johnson's presidency – and many argue, Johnson himself – were destroyed long before America could finally, 10 years later, quit Vietnam.

 

Obama's decision to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan has reawakened those memories of Vietnam's early days, and brought unsettling comparisons from an array of historians who have spent their careers studying Johnson.

 

That would have to be the most redundant comparison I've ever come across.

 

When LBJ sent more troops in to Vietnam the US only had a few thousand trainers in country, LBJ joined the war.

 

When Obama ordered a surge in Astan there were already tens of thousands of troops in Astan in direct combat.

 

Vietnam never attacked ConUS (Gulf of Tonkin incident, yeah yeah)

 

Elements protected by the ruling power in Astan attacked ConUS.

 

LBJ was following a largely questionable strategy after the Korean war.

 

Obama is following a largely successful strategy following the surge in Iraq.

 

LBJ made a decision against popular consultation and was reportedly (and by his own recordings) largely a personal decision

 

Obama had long periods of consultation (some would say overly drawn out) with a large amount of people from those on the ground to strategic advisors on the matter.

 

 

 

 

Seriously, that comparison above is retarded and reeks of bias and wishful thinking.

[cunt sauce]

Vietnam never attacked ConUS (Gulf of Tonkin incident, yeah yeah)

 

umm last time i checked the people of Afghanistan never attacked the u.s. either. we are there for one thing and for one thing only. there are resources under their feet that we desire. so we taketh thee.

[christo-f]

As I said, elements protected by those in power attacked the US. What was the US supposed to do, allow 9/11 to go unanswered?

 

 

What resources does Afghanistan have that the US wants?

[Spitfire15]

There is no "resources under their feet", retard. Afghanistan has nothing to offer but assholes in black turbans.

[twonpoo]

[lord_casek]

As I said, elements protected by those in power attacked the US. What was the US supposed to do, allow 9/11 to go unanswered?

 

 

What resources does Afghanistan have that the US wants?

 

 

Opium and a very strategic location.

[christo-f]

What's so strategic about Afghanistan?

[UPS!]

I disagree about withdraw being irresponsible.

We shouldn't have gone over in the first place, can't fix that.

But they've had enough babysitter time, 5 years and billions of dollars.

If they can't hold their shit together by now they never will.

 

This

[Rustofills]

What's so strategic about Afghanistan?

 

For starters. Its very close to Iraq geographically and boarding IRAN. Not to mention, ( but I will for sake of discussion. ) Its close and boarding China with small mountain range at the furthest east point of Afganistan. If there ever needed to be a stageing point in that part of the world. Afghanistan would be perfect. Lets not forget, as unlikly as it might be that we ever would go to war with China. It is not an imposable scenario. Just considering the fact that China is 2nd in world oil and gas consumption.

[christo-f]

I'd say that it is the worst staging point possible.... and those mountains aint so small.

 

Look at China, the vast majority of the population lives on the eastern coast. Their industrial base, their capital and all their ports that service their export economy are thousands of miles away. Why would you base yourself on the other side of the largest mountain range in the world, a desert and great distance when you can park three carrier groups (one of which is already in Japan) off the coast, use Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier, use your bases in ROK and Okinawa and destroy China's command, control, industry and critical infrastructure all without setting a boot on their soil? Why would you travel across the whole country to attack the other side, passing over the Himalayas in between?

 

Not to mention that the Wakhan Corridor in Afghanistan still only has a partially built road, a lot of it still being single lane dirt with no passing bays. It's a TERRIBLE way to get hundreds of thousands of forces in to China, horrible to transport massively heavy equipment over, you can only go one way and the advance and remaining logistic support is totally vulnerable to air and missile power as it has nowhere to go once either ends of the roads are destroyed by a few small charges or missiles.

 

Lastly, why on earth would ANYONE ever actually invade China? They have 1.3 bullion people!! Even if every person in the US boarded ships and invaded China they'd still be outnumbered 4-1.

 

Sorry, Afghanistan has no strategic relevance in regards to a military invasion or strike on China, none at all.

 

I don't know why it matters to IRaq, the American are already there. Not to mention the fact that there is a large hostile country in between Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

As for Iran, nope, sorry, Tehran is at the intersection of the Elbruz and Zargros mountains, the other side of the country from the Afghan border. That means that any invading army has to trek across some pretty harsh mountains before it gets to the heart land to destroy command and control. Why would you do that when you can just hit it from the air and the ocean? They can do this from Iraq, or they can just send a carrier up the Persian gulf and do it from there. No need to set boots on the ground. Secondly, their most vulnerable places are the port of Bandar Abbas and the Shat al Arab, both fucking ages away from the Afghan border. You destroy Bandar Abbas, most of their critical shipping infrastructure is lost, goodbye all seaborn trade. You take out defenses in Shat al Arab and you've just given Saudi Arabia and Iraq a wonderful leg up at moving in to control the Persian Gulf meaning that Iran can only now trade to the north through Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Turkey. And that means that they are going to have Iran over a barrel and buy shit off Iran cheap as chips and sell it for a massive profit elsewhere because there is not other alternative for the Iranians.

 

All this can be achieved without putting a foot on the ground in either Iran or Afghanistan. The US could just blockade the Straits of Hormuz and there goes most of Iran's economy. However, I'm not saying that Iran doesn't pose a problem for for the US if hey attack it, just that being in Afghanistan doesn't give the US, or anyone any advantage in doing so.

 

 

 

Casek?

[lord_casek]

I'd say that it is the worst staging point possible.... and those mountains aint so small.

 

Look at China, the vast majority of the population lives on the eastern coast. Their industrial base, their capital and all their ports that service their export economy are thousands of miles away. Why would you base yourself on the other side of the largest mountain range in the world, a desert and great distance when you can park three carrier groups (one of which is already in Japan) off the coast, use Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier, use your bases in ROK and Okinawa and destroy command, communications, industry and critical infrastructure all without setting a boot on their soil?

 

Not to mention that the Wakhan Corridor still only has a partially built road, a lot of it still single lane dirt with no passing bays. It's a TERRIBLE way to get hundreds of thousands of forces in to China, horrible to transport massively heavy equipment over, you can only go one way and the advance and remaining logistic support is totally vulnerable to air and missile power as it has nowhere to go once the lead and read ends of the lines are destroyed.

 

Lastly, why on earth would ANYONE ever actually invade China? They have 1.3 bullion people!! Even if avery person in the US boarded ships and invaded China they'd still be outnumbered 4-1.

 

Sorry, Afghanistan has no strategic relevance in regards to a military invasion or strike on China, none at all.

 

I don't know why it matters to IRaq, the American already have their assets in that country.

 

As for Iran, nope, sorry, Tehran is at the intersection of the Elbruz and Zargros mountains, the other side of the country from the Afghan border. That means that any invading army has to trek across some pretty harsh mountains before it gets to the heart land to destroy command and control. Why would you do that when you can just hit it from the air and the ocean? They can do this from Iraq, or they can just send a carrier up the Persian gulf and do it from there. No need to set boots on the ground. Secondly, their most vulnerable places are the port of Bandar Abbas and the Shat al Arab, both fucking ages away from the Afghan border. You destroy Bandar Abbas, most of their critical shipping infrastructure is lost, goodbye all seaborn trade. You take out defenses in Shat al Arab and you've just given Saudi Arabia and Iraq a wonderful leg up at moving in to control the Persian Gulf meaning that you can only now trade to the north through Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Turkey. And that means that they are going to have you over a barrel and buy shit off Iran cheap as chips and sell it for a massive profit elsewhere because there is not other alternative.

 

All this can be achieved without putting a foot on the ground in either Iran or Afghanistan. The US could just blockade the Straits of Hormuz and there goes most of Iran's economy. However, I'm not saying that Iran doesn't pose a problem for attacking the US, just that being in Afghanistan doesn't give the US, or anyone any advantage.

 

 

 

Casek?

 

 

If you look at the places we are now placing arms/troops, it's a wide semi-circle around Russia/China.

 

I'm not an analyst and you know that, this is just the opinion of someone who tries to follow world events/news. I'm learning from you, though.

[christo-f]

Oh, you're totally correct that the US has been moving to contain Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union (actually they were doing since WW2, it's just now they have had much more success) and China since Mao consolidated the country under teh communists in 1949. Nixon did create detente with China in order to balance against Russia in the 70s but since Deng Xiao Ping opened up the economy in the 80s China has been able to balance against the US economically rather than ideologically. Now China is using their treasure to by guns and that, of course, concerns the US.

 

That, of course is typical behaviour for geopolitics, every nation included. If you look at the US post-WW2 they have created trade access deals and basing/foreign policy deals with Japan and S.Korea which cover Pacific Russia, DPRK and China. They have supported Taiwan for strategic advantage in China. They have an alliance with Thailand, Philippines and Australia along with docking rights and a base in Singapore. The US effectively controls the whole Pacific rim.

 

The US also recently started attemptig overtures with Myanmar/Burma even through Aung San Su Kyi has not been released and democracy is not taking shape there. That is because China is starting to push in to the region (gas and oil transit lines coming from the western coast of Myanmar to China to transport Mid East and myanmar energy meaning that China doesn't have to travel as much through the vulnerable maritime choke point of Malacca Straits. Mekong highway from Kunming into the delta region increasing trade and interdependence on the Mekong region and China, CHina starting "fisheries" patrols in the South China Seas in order to stake their claim on the Spratly and Paracel Islands, etc.) and the probability that as China's economy expands and their currency eventually revalues, which it will, a lot of the lower end manufacturing will shift to the cheaper areas of ASEAN.

 

That means more trade with China and more trade with the US. Of course the US wants to have more influence in shaping the policy of ASEAN countries to suit US wishes, any country would. So you will see more interest in this area as well. As I mentioned before there is also the issue of the Malacca straights. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, China, etc. get a MASSIVE amount of their energy supplies through this very small and tight maritime choke point. Anyone tries to blockade that and you have serious issues all through the PAcific. It's as strategically significant as the Hormuz straight and even more so than the Suez and Panama canal. So the interest in the region isn't just about China.

 

Then when you look at Russia, you now have all three Baltic states as NATO members, Georgia is still trying its best to get accepted as well. The US pushed the colour revolutions through Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Kyrgyzstan, etc., is trying to base itself on the Northern european Plain in Poland to block the Russian approach to Western Europe, basing BMD in Romania, etc.

 

Yeah, absolutely the US is doing that and why wouldn't they? However I'd not say that Afghanistan is part of this. It is probably the most honest aspect of the war on terror (hate using that term).

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

the war on terror (hate using that term).

 

the original term was The War Against Terror, that was changed when people realised the acronym spelled twat.

[lord_casek]

the original term was The War Against Terror, that was changed when people realised the acronym spelled twat.

 

as was Operation Iraqi Liberation

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I think TWAT and OIL are perfect.

[TheoHuxtable..]

I KNOW WHAT OBAMA IS DOING....HE IS MAKING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STRONGER. HOW THE HELL COULD THE DEMS BLOW TED KENNEDY'S SEAT? ANSWER- OBAMACARE. THE IDIOT COULDNT EVEN GET THE BILL PASSED WITH A DEMOCRATIC SUPER MAJORITY. HE IS TURNING INTO AN ABSOLUTE EMBARRASSMENT. .

 

 

The seat was blown because the candidate was a pompous moron. She didn't campaign, didn't go out to shake hands & give speeches, and thought she could win by default due to being in a heavily blue liberal state.

[lord_casek]

The seat was blown because the candidate was a pompous moron. She didn't campaign, didn't go out to shake hands & give speeches, and thought she could win by default due to being in a heavily blue liberal state.

 

 

I second this.

[ShortFuse]

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers123.html

[lord_casek]

Confidential document reveals Obama's hardline US climate talk strategy

 

Document outlines key messages the Obama administration wants to convey in the run-up to UN climate talks in Mexico in November

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/12/us-document-strategy-climate-talks

[cunt sauce]

my brain isn't functioning well, due to hangover, but basically the document is saying, "convince the rest of the world that we are doing something to correct climate change (even though we aren't) to distract them from our oh so high, per capita carbon consumption?"

[lord_casek]

my brain isn't functioning well, due to hangover, but basically the document is saying, "convince the rest of the world that we are doing something to correct climate change (even though we aren't) to distract them from our oh so high, per capita carbon consumption?"

 

you left out "global regime"

[christo-f]

What makes you so sure that the doc is authentic?

[cunt sauce]

"A document accidentally left on a European hotel computer and passed to the Guardian....."

 

sounds pretty credible to me

[christo-f]

Should I be detecting sarcasm?

 

My first question is why was this on a hotel computer? Most people have laptops and that's where stuff like this stay. If it had been a portable HD, USB stick or BB I'd be more inclined to give it a great benefit of doubt as that happens on the regular. This is a little questionable though.

 

Not saying it isn't true, just asking the appropriate questions. How can we be sure that a competitor did not fabricate the doc in order to frame perceptions?