Category Archives: war
My questions to Obama about appeasement
All Bush was saying is that he is again appeasement. Does all the hysteria in dems camp shows that democrats are against “ anti- appeasement” remarks of Bush? If so why ? Are they are pro – appeasement?
“There is a strong bipartisan tradition of engaging in that kind of diplomacy,” Obama told reporters” source
If USA did everything so perfectly correct before, and all we need is go back to what we had before in foreign policy, why then after all successes of 60s ,70s , 80s and 90s which which Obama is referring us to, “ suddenly “ 9/11 happened? May be it was a price to pay previous for appeasement in Lebanon, Somali, U.S.S. Kole etc?
“They’ve got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George Bush’s policies,” source
Hitler was a natural counterbalance to Stalin. Defeat of Germany in WW2 made USSR a regional superpower. Does it mean that we should not fight Hitler in order to keep the balance on?
according to CNN
“The sharpest exchange in the debate came when Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was asked about the McCain campaign’s charge that he once said he favored a strict timetable for removing troops from Iraq.
Romney has consistently denied ever having backed a timetable and said McCain was taking a small portion of a quote out of context.
“It’s simply wrong,” Romney said. “By the way, raising it a few days before the Florida primary, when there was very little time for me to correct the record, falls in the kind of dirty tricks that Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible.” But McCain, the Arizona senator who has strongly backed President Bush’s Iraq policy, accused Romney of hedging after public support for the war waned.”
OK, if it is so why state talker McCain would not say in a few days before the Florida primary that “Romney of hedging after public support for the war waned” instead of lying about Romney embracing a timetable foe withdraw ?
McCain may be right that Romney should support surge back then in more clear words. I would agree with McCain in that.
But I am troubled by the fact that instead of criticizing Romney for not clear enough supporting the surge , McCain start making stories about Romney accepting a timetable. Why in order to make a legitimate point McCain has to lie?
Is it the high moral ground on which McCain is making gains?
I have no time to write for my blog: business is going very well and takes all my time. However few notes I have to post. As a Floridian republican I am going to vote in Florida Republican primary tomorrow and my vote goes to Mitt Romney!
Why not McCain?
Because , in addtion to everything I wrote previously( here and here):
McCain’s attack on Romney with accusations that Romney has a timetable for withdrawal : it is a lie. And it is disgusting when a candidate such a McCain, who built a campaign on “higher than others moral ground” is lying. The fact that Romney is willing to discuss an end of Iraq war (not a timetable!!!) is a very good sign for me. It shows that Romney is a real pragmatist and as such he sees that we have a mission in Iraq and as long as soon as that mission is completed, we have no further business there. Romney is not for capitulation, Romney is not for withdrawal due to ideology. Romney is for victorious end of the war, is anything wrong with ending the war victoriously and going home? McCain wants us to stay in Iraq forever and wants our troops to serve and protect Iraqis (which is very silly in my view). I do not want our troops there in harms ways serving Iraqis. So Romney position is clear: get the job done, take care of results and then get out!
2. McCain is continuously mocking the fact that Romney is rich and therefore spending his wealth for elections. Since when it is a stigma to be rich in America?
I am for Romney because:
• Romney is smart, unlike McCain (who was ranked fifth from the bottom in a class of about 800 graduates) Romney was a brilliant student
graduated from a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated cum laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class. McCain, on other hand, graduated near the bottom of his class from Annapolis Naval Academy. (read more)
• Romney is successful, he is campaigning in depth and seriously (unlike Thompson and Giuliani).
• Romney is a man of moral convictions and does not play with his faith as McCain does: today McCain is “Episcopalian,” tomorrow Baptist, after tomorrow he might be a Mormon.
• He is a successful guy and a proven manager (which by definition make him an excellent leader) as I wrote previously. I see no contradiction between leader and manager.
If not Mitt Romney who can be a better president ?
Watching republican debates on FOX
Ron Paul: republican party is threatening to Iran and Pakistan
Wait a second was it OBAMA who was going to attack Pakistan? Name me one republican who did advocate this idea
thank you to all our vets, first of all , today vets from the Iraq and Afghanistan . Happy Veterans Day!
Listening to Barack Obama’s recent speech in Manchester New Hampshire (CSPN-2) :
Incredibly populist speech. He can beat even Edwards with his blatant populism.
If I will have time I will go point by point: education, healthcare , global warming; all accessories of populism are in place. Nothing really new in this populist talk.
History knows only two forms of implementation of populism: communism and fascism. Those who like populism have to choose on those above because there are no other historical options available.
Let me focus only on his favorite aspect : anti war ( or to be precise pro-defeat) position. His anti-war vote is essentially only thing that separates him from Clinton who is essentially same populist position in terms of universal healthcare and feeding money to educational system.
So let us see what Obama is saying about the war:
” undo the war” slogan
He reminds us again and again that he was one who was against the war.
You were against war? OK! Let us for the sake of argument accept that you were right then. It does not mean that you are right now. Things changed between then and now. You cannot stay in the past .You have to adjust your political mind to new reality. You do not like this reality? So do I. But if you do not like a reality it does not mean that you can ignore a reality: there is no “UNDO” button on “ political computer”. You were against the war it does not mean that you can “undo“ that war. And this is what Obama essentially is saying: “I was against the war then , war was wrong then , and if you will elect me I will end the war ( read “ I will capitulate”)”.
He presumes, for some reason, that after he will surrender everything will be like it was before the war. He presumes that the war will be undone by electing him as a president. Very misleading and deceitful message.
price of withdrawal: misleading out of the war versus misleading in the war
If Obama indeed is honest as he claims (the main message of Obama’s is that he is honest outsider unlike other candidates who are dishonest insiders ) he has to talk right now with his constituency about price of withdrawal which will be huge. But he is not talking about price of capitulation, he is talking only about how correct he was back then when he was against the war. ( his glorious moment as he thinks)
He either does not understand what he is talking about or he is disingenuous in order to just to be elected. Why he his not talking with constituency about the price of withdrawal ( capitulation)? He is saying that if he is a president he will talk honestly about problems. So talk to us about the price of capitulation! Repercussions of capitulation will be catastrophic or at least they serious enough to talk about if you are really honest, of course . Capitulation means broken commitments, slaughtered allies, forever brokent trust in USA as word worthy partner.
So my question to Obama is : OK we got your message , you were right then does it mean that you have an alibi for being wrong now?
personal vanity of Bush versus personal vanity of Obama;
May be starting the war was caused by personal vanity of Bush. May be so . But it looks like that loosing the war is a goal dedicated to personal vanity of Obama. Just because he voted against war, war has to be lost . Otherwise … he was wrong! So hurry up Obama , obstruct American efforts to win the war! If the USA will win this war it iwill prove that you were wrong back then voting against the war! You cannot afford it personally , so you have to “ stop Bush” in his efforts to win the war.
We are paying price for mistakes of Bush . I agree with that .Many things were done wrong. But why anybody would think that “ ending the war “ ( read capitulation) just because Obama voted back then against the war, will solve any of our problems? Would capitulation be a monument to Obama’s vanity?