To say that America is surrendering its role as the leader of the free world is a colossal understatement …
The nation that used to be like E.F. Hutton (i.e. we spoke, people listened) is clearly in decline … increasingly lacking the fiscal stability, moral authority and military capability to fight for the fundamental values it claims to support.
Not that it ought to be America’s business to impose its values on the rest of the word … it isn’t … although we would assert that in certain circumstances (i.e. not Iraq or Afghanistan) it is a core responsibility of government to take out those individuals who have waged violence (or are planning to wage violence) against our people.
Civis Americanus sum, right?
You bet your ass …
But it is precisely the non-core functions of government – i.e. the ongoing and unprecedented expansions of extra-constitutional authority – that are killing this county, with U.S. President Barack Obama placing the failed domestic policies of former president George W. Bush on steroids.
And then pretty much falling asleep at the wheel on foreign policy …
Twenty years ago, a sustained American revival – if not a Pax Americana – seemed distinctly possible, but within the last two decades (and particularly within the last ten years) we have seen a dramatic unraveling of American supremacy.
Why? Because domestically our government isn’t about freedom anymore … nor is it about free markets. Instead, it is moving this nation headlong toward an Orwellian police state and a command economic model in which government dictates the production and distribution of goods and services.
Seriously … “it’s real, you should say something.”
Internationally? Our foreign policy has also been turned upside down, with the goal apparently being to belittle our historic allies while sucking up to nations that wish to do us harm.
As a result, America is simultaneously embracing the economic ideologies of the socialist nations it ostensibly defeated in the Cold War while courting the religious ideologies of nations that currently want to destroy us … or eat us from within.
Meanwhile socialist nations like China are embracing capitalism and “rogue” states like Iran are developing nuclear weapons … achieving their own versions of the “revival” that our nation has so inexcusably pissed away.
America’s response? Nothing … our government was too busy aiding and abetting these religious zealots in their quest to eradicate one of our few Middle Eastern allies, the state of Israel. And most Americans are (understandably) too busy trying to rub a pair of nickels together during this ongoing recession to realize the significance of what’s happening halfway around the world.
“I think (Obama has) put far too much pressure on the Israelis to come to an agreement with the Palestinians even though they’re supported by Hamas,” U.S. Speaker John Boehner recently said. “I just think we’ve gone way over the line. Israel is our ally. They’ve been our friends for 60 years.”
Boehner is an irredeemable tool on fiscal issues, to be sure, but he’s got this basic foreign policy dynamic right.
We knew that Barack Obama had no love for Israel – that’s something he made very clear shortly after taking office.
That’s why his latest open mic gaffe with French President Nicolas Sarkozy – in which the two leaders belittled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone.
Obama simply doesn’t like Israel – which may explain why he’s been so indefensibly negligent in defending them (and the world) from the Iranian nuclear menace.
“The efforts of the Obama administration to restrain Iran over the past three years have been an utter failure,” former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed recently wrote.
Again, you won’t find a website more critical of social conservative tools like Reed, but like Boehner … he’s got this basic math correct.
Like Neville Chamberlain negotiating with Adolf Hitler, Obama sought a new relationship with the Muslim world – although his version of appeasement was met by a stern rebuke as opposed to clever lies.
Still, Obama pursued that relationship blindly … and is still pursuing it today.
How foolish. America can no more negotiate with Islamic fundamentalists than it can bail out the failed socialist nations of Europe – although our country is currently attempting to do both with trillions of borrowed dollars.
It’s time to reverse both of those approaches …
Just as America needs a radical reduction and re-prioritization of its core functions at home, our nation is long overdue for a reversal of its failed foreign policy.
***
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 10:46 am
“Obama simply doesn’t like Israel – which may explain why he’s been so indefensibly negligent in defending them (and the world) from the Iranian nuclear menace.”
It’s not our fuckin job to defend Israel. They can defend themselves fine already on top of it. They have our weapons and the capability to fuck anyone up they want in the region.(see 6 day war) Especially so if we stay out of their foreign affairs and stop telling them what to do.
No foreign aid to Israel, or Egypt, the Saudi’s, etc. If we stop funding both sides of this “conflict” in that area it’d be a good start to major foreign policy change.
If Israel feels Iran’s a threat than can do just like they did Saddam and bomb the hell out of them. I’m tired of the US carrying the worlds water.
The fact is that Iran even getting a few nukes has no impact on us what-so-ever. They are still at least a decade away from a delivery system and the effectiveness of that system still has to contend with the ever improving Patriot missle defense system and the new and effective laser based warhead destruction systems.
The last thing this country needs is another “nation building” excercise drummed up by creating sheeple fear, sinking us further into financial disaster.
“National Security” is all about fiscal solvency now, not some two bit third world nation scoring a couple of nukes…yet unable to make their own gasoline let alone a way to launch them.
We somehow survived Russia having 30,000 of them pointed at our continent.
Wake the fuck up cowards!
By snodgrass November 9, 2011 at 11:01 am
Me thinks the neocons are having their way with the Fitsmeister.
By Boss Hogg November 9, 2011 at 11:05 am
“We somehow survived Russia having 30,000 of them pointed at our continent.”
Russia is a state with a government, they have something to lose. If Russia nuked us, Moscow would be vaporized in a matter of minutes.
Not to sound too cliche, it’s a brave new world. The reason why a nuclear Iran is a threat, also Pakistan, is because with globalization it takes one radical person, who wants Islam to go back to the 15th century, to act as a non global actor and destroy the global economy. If Iran gets a weapon, then the Sunni countries may attempt to arm themselves, and thus the market for terrorists to acquire a weapon substantially broadens. Would we nuke a country if an attack was carried out by a small group or individual, killing millions of innocents?
In today’s era, built on confidence, if a nuke went off…anywhere…it’s game over. Everything will crash, people will lose confidence in government’s ability to protect them. That’s why the defense of Israel is important (I am against Zionism, I think it was wrong for westerners to say that b/c Jews had some land 2000 years ago they still have that right today b/c people tried to exterminate them during WWII,and I believe there should be a two state solution). If Israel gets eliminated, then people will acknowledge this can happen in the US.
Wake up and smell the roses. This is globalization 3.0. We can’t go back and think we’re safe behind our oceans. If civilized society anywhere is threatened it could destroy the financial markets and cause a collapse in gov’t, and allow for the rise of a despot.
We don’t need to engage in nation building, but perpetuate countries right to exist in this world.
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 11:30 am
“Would we nuke a country if an attack was carried out by a small group or individual, killing millions of innocents?
In today’s era, built on confidence, if a nuke went off…anywhere…it’s game over.”
We know the answer to the first question, because we’ve done it already (Nagasaki & Hiroshima), the rest of the world knows it too.
M.A.D. is very effective for even the looniest of loonies. Beyond that, you discount the effectiveness of our defensive capabilities and that of Israel’s…who we naturally give weapons to.(though they should buy them)
As far as your statement on confidence, it’s going to be a lot less than a tactical nuke that sets off global economic meltdown. The promises of global govt’s are clearly being uncovered as unmeetable already so I don’t think you have to worry about an attack from Iran or any of it’s neighbors on Israel setting off global economic meltdown. That pie’s already baked and we’ll get to enjoy it’s goodness within 3 years IMHO.
The larger question is whether we are going to allow the various “chicken little” military scenarios to bring our empire to its knees financially, like the multitude of times this “movie” has been played out before…with the biggest example being Rome but plenty of others to back it up.
By jean November 9, 2011 at 11:38 am
What do we expect from a president who ordered the unprecedented BURNING of BIBLES in AFGHANISTAN?
By Boss Hogg November 9, 2011 at 11:45 am
“We know the answer to the first question, because we’ve done it already (Nagasaki & Hiroshima), the rest of the world knows it too.
”
By a non state actor you idiot. I am talking about non state supported terrorists. The atomic bomb was against a country we were at war against.
I agree we need to end militarism, this is not militarism its defense.
It’s clear to tell you’re in the cult of Paul, flailing to attempt to prove that we can go back in time where globalization doesn’t exist. I agree with Paul on many points, he likens his points to an example of going back in time and say we survived without this agency or that agency, but… you can’t act like this is the Cold War. Globalization is new, communication is instantaneous, and coupled with WMD’s extremely dangerous.
1 person with a bomb would wreck confidence. Look, if Greece’s default (they’ve defaulted many times before) can put the global economy on edge…imagine what the liquidation of a city would do from a terrorist attack.
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Fuck you Boss Fogg.
As a country we’ve killed at LEAST 300,000 civilians between Afghanistan and Iraq(but probably over 500,000) over 19 guys, most of which were Saudi’s, flying planes into buildings and killing over 3000 of our people. (“non state actor’s as you put it”)
You “point” is not lost to me moron, you just fail to put anyting into context or perspective. “non state actor” or state actor is the nice dressing you put on a turkey of foreign policy. You hide behind obfuscation in cowardness to justify what is immoral and insensible foreign policy.
Whether I support Paul or not is not the issue. The issue is whether freaks like yourself are running the country into the ground over your politics of fear.(whether knowingly or unknowingly-I’ll assume for the moment you are generally afraid instead of generally evil)
Even your obvious ignoring the current global fiscal state is telling as to how weak your argument is aside from you kicking off our round of mutual ad hominem.
Keep “flailing” around in your attempts to justify the unjustifiable. The more you type the more you show your ineptitude to discern fact from fiction.
By Boss Hogg November 9, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Someone needs meds^^^
Boss Fogg? good ad ad hominem–not very original though…or derogatory
Where did I ever vindicate Afghanistan or Iraq? I didn’t so don’t preach to me that I am a war hawk.
I am not a fear monger, I am diabolically evil, and if wasn’t for you catching on to my plan of brainwashing, I would have conquered the world.
Hey Mr. Paulista, I agreed that the debt crisis is threat #1 and I think Paul has some good DOMESTIC ideas, and I’m also against militarism, but the countries PERPETUATION to exist must be protected. However, threat #2 is not fear mongering to state that it is plausible that a nuclear terrorist attack could wipe out the global markets (it’s called bringing an issue to light for discussion, instead of denying all probability and attacking my character, because it goes against your political beliefs.
By wawa November 9, 2011 at 12:24 pm
A rant I’ve been holding in on “nukes”:
I was an economics major and the nuclear question is one much more of an economic question than one of military or political. It’s really just a slight variation on the classic “prisoner’s dilemma.” We have nukes so people know that if they f with us the world WILL end. People get mad when we disclose the situations when we would use nukes but what they fail to understand is that is the ENTIRE reason we even have nukes to begin with. They are really like insurance – their power is derived not from the resulting thermonuclear blast but from the threat of the blast and meticulous and public rules of engagement. The availability of information is where the nuclear question deviates from the classic prisoner’s dilemma problem and allows cooperation in a sense with our advisories to form a peaceful (with regards to alternatives) relationship.
Then leaders and even terrorists have to consider if they are willing to bring humanity to an end for a dig at the American people. Most of the time this answer will be NO. Which is why we will NEVER see two sovereign nations engage in nuclear attacks. This extends to terrorists who have monetary or political goals.
The problem with nukes and nuclear proliferation is the problem and analysis discussed above assumes (as economic analysis pretty much always does) the actors are rational. This is likely a safe assumption with leaders in the US, Russia, China, Europe, India, Pakistan and leaders of most organized crime groups (such as cartels, rebels in Africa, etc.). Rationality begins to break down with countries like North Korea and other relatively weak nations or groups who view their leader as a deity. There can also be serious questions about groups and countries that are motivated entirely by religion like Israel (who won’t confirm or deny their nuclear capacity, which as discussed before should be a red flag) and potentially Islamic extremist groups.
I contend that Iran doesn’t pose a threat of launching a nuclear attack under their flag because though they are nuts at times they still seem to function as a sovereign entity, military action would presume the continuation of humanity, and their people are fairly westernized (this presumes that the government has aspirations of functioning as a member of the world).
I also don’t believe the establishment groups like Al Qaeda would be interested in a nuclear attack on America. Quite frankly, if they were I believe they would have done it by now. Also, despite the talk about “70 virgins” the leadership of Al Qaeda’s religious motivations are seeking a political resolution. They want the west out of the mid-east and setting of a nuclear device would increase our presence OR simply bring about the end of humanity. Dirty bombs would likely be more attractive to them as they don’t carry the same implications as a conventional nuclear device.
So what you’re left with is who’s going to throw the first punch? I’d say if it ever happens it will either be someone who is intending to bring about the end of humanity (probably a cult like mentality) and would probably be North Korea, a rogue branch of an already extreme Islamic group, or… Israel.
I think I’m fairly off topic at this point but I had to get that out. I’m sure people will have criticisms (because lets face it… blogs are the USA Today for people with criticisms) and I just want to point out before hand that this is all very theoretical and based on a lot of assumptions but is as good of an analysis as you could expect in a comment section and with limited intelligence information.
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm
You started off with the “character attacks” by calling me an “idiot” to start.
So now I take off the gloves and you want to take the high road? I think not. I finished what you started douchebag and I’m not gonna pretend to be friendly about it.
The rest of your comments aren’t even worthy of response as they’ve already been addressed by my earlier comments. I’m happy to let everyone here read and decide what makes best sense Mr. “I am diabolically evil”.
By Boss Hogg November 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm
On another note,
When someone has different political opinions than you do, it is not appropriate to make unfounded personal attacks. For instance, people HATE Paul supporters claiming there is one cookie cutter ideology for conservatives, or liberals, and if you don’t adhere to our ideology you aren’t conservative. Let the people decide for themselves what they chose to believe in.
As a Paul supporter, you should be aware of the concept of liberty, and people have the right to chose whatever ideology they seem fit without harassment or a certain ideology being shoved down one’s throat. Try to discuss without going ape shit crazy, and defend your arguments without making claims that the other person is evil.
If you noticed we agree on fiscal policy, but you and I differentiated on the threat of terrorism in the globalized world and its consequences.
By Boss Hogg November 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm
I called you an idiot on the point you didn’t accurately read my post–that’s fair game.
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Stop whining like a little bitch over my retorts to your ad hominenm’s and make your arguments. You started it all and now you want a return to “civility”; what a hypocrite. If there’s anything worth responding to in them I’ll do it:
Big deal, we “agree” in your mind over economics.(I don’t think so, but carry on.)
There’s a big difference on the solutions obviously as you think we can justify more interventionism despite the country spending twice what it takes in annually over slaying the next bogeyman in a world filled with lots of potential monsters. I suppose you think we can balance the budget by solely removing all the welfare programs, right?
I didn’t claim you were evil did I? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Go back and read it again.
By james November 9, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Because Bush, Cheney and their merry band of Neocons spent 2 trillion dollars on an invasion of a non-nuclear Iraq that was no military threat to us, we cannot afford to go to war with Iran without bankrupting our country.
Because Bush gave our European allies the finger, when they said we don’t want you to invade Iraq, we can expect no help from them.
Because of the massive expansion of Chinese wealth and power under Bush, they want Iran’s oil, and they will not support our war, nor will their new buddies the Russians.
The US military is more powerful than it has ever been, but we cannot take on the world. We have been hoisted with our own Neocon petard.
By BigT November 9, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Way too long, boring and cliche to read the whole thing.
But WHY FITS is Such a DUMBASS….IT’s LIBERALISM….STUPID….learn that, then whine…
Bottom line: AMERICA Frees other nations…to even re-hash the idea that we IMPOSE our will on other people is nothing but the liberal Tripe invented to makes us ashamed for fighting for the freedom of those too weak to do it all by themselves.
You come across as a half-educated, non-thinking, pop culture drone…
Until you develop some sense of reality..and America, Idiots like FITS would br better serve themselves, and their country to STFU….
By Boss Hogg November 9, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Once again…I agree we need to end militarism, (that means we can cut defense, we don’t need 11 air craft carriers). That said we can’t let other countries bully established countries, that’s Iran to Israel or Israel to Iran. Iran’s gov’t has stated that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, that’s political battery.
I personally believe that a nuclear Iran would create an environment where nuclear weapons are more accessible (since they’re all about bucking the UN) to terrorists.
You assumed I was afraid with the only other alternative is evil…I’m sorry your mentality is if you don’t believe x you must be y.
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 12:59 pm
“Iran’s gov’t has stated that Israel needs to be wiped off the map,”
Go ahead and provide AND LINK a reference to that. You are repeating the lie stated OVER and OVER again in MSM. I heard that fathead Kevin Cohen say it to on the radio yesterday.
The crazy man in Iran NEVER said it…it started off with Anderson Pooper presupposing on one interview with him and was carried off into perpetuity by the media and warhawks with an agenda.
Ahmadinejad never said it. He’s not happy with Israel, he doesn’t think they deserve the Palestian’s land, but what you’ve just said is pure MSM tripe that has no relaible source other than presuppositions by two different interviewers in the MSM.
As far as you being “evil” or “afraid” I don’t see a third option, so you are correct I assume one or the other only because I don’t like to normally categorize people without knowing them. So if you aren’t “afraid” why bomb Iran or destroy them over their nuke program?
Btw, if you think my comment about your UNTRUE Ahmadinejad quote is BS…head on over to wikipedia. At least if you do that you can see the truth for youself, which I guarantee is more than that asswipe Cohen would ever do.
This is why I made my assertion about your inability to discern fact from fiction earlier. In all honesty I can’t blame you totally, the MSM puts out a lot of information to obscure truth and move sheeple opinion around…all in the name of Uncle Sam justification.
By BigT November 9, 2011 at 1:04 pm
When you begin from premises devised by the liberals, you failed to fix it before you even start.
Our pride can be regained quickly w/ the overthrow of liberalsim. To drone and on about it, is exactly the type of mindset that got us here.
Be Americans…and we’ll become AMERICA, again.
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Just shut the fuck up for once BigT and stop trying to insert you damned ignorant asylum rants into reasonable discussion for once.
Normally I just ignore your borderline psychotic ass, but occasionally you are just so fucking annoying I feel the need to bray at you to remind all the other more patient people that you’re an idiot.
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 1:18 pm
edit: “your”
for all the grammar/syntax Nazi’s…not that a FITSnews comment section is a term paper
By tr pk boy November 9, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Sad’s kickin some ass today.
By Carl Childers November 9, 2011 at 2:03 pm
I went to Wikipedia and got the article discussing the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
What was written, and other accounts make it sound to me that the President of Iran was saying the occupiers of Jerusalem should be wiped of the map.
Islamic apologists will try to make it sound more tame, but in the whole context sounds to me like “Israel should be wiped off the map.”
I say this knowing he is anti-Semitic and a holocaust denier. He is by the way, in my opinion, a first class nut.
Still I cannot translate Arabic and must trust the translations of others.
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 2:21 pm
“Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: “How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime.”
That’s the IRANIAN GOV’T itself. I’m assuming you read the various translations of his statement, but regardless of the disagreement over their literal translation why would we simply not take the word of the gov’t itself?
If they were so brazen to promote war as the various MSM outlets would like you to believe why wouldn’t the Iranian gov’t go ahead and affirm it again?
Because it simply wasn’t intended…that’s why.
If they wanted Israel “wiped off the map” in a military sense they would obviously have no problem saying it again.
It’s just another pretext for war, just like the missing WMD.
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 2:26 pm
btw, a further, more in depth view of the interview and it’s ENTIRE context is here:
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
Why is this important? Cause it’s the #1 chant to the beating of war drums over Iran.
By snodgrass November 9, 2011 at 2:37 pm
“What was written, and other accounts make it sound to me that the President of Iran was saying the occupiers of Jerusalem should be wiped of the map.”
Iran, and many other nations (not all Muslim), are opposed to what they view as a Zionist occupation. It’s a complicated issue that is further complicated by the fact that most Westerner’s have little knowledge of what Zionism is.
All Zionists are not Jewish, and not all Jews are Zionists. Believe it or not, many Jews sympathize with the Palestinians. Prior to the creation of the Israeli nation-state, Jews, Muslims and Christians coexisted in that region with less aggression and ethnic hostility than there is today.
The only place that was ever “wiped off the map” in that part of the world is Palestine. You may remember it from the Bible; Jesus Christ began His life there.
By ? November 9, 2011 at 3:10 pm
“I say this knowing he is anti-Semitic and a holocaust denier.”
Oh boy, if we have to go around killing everyone in power that’s a Jew hater there’s gonna be a lot less of them alive in the world…
(and I’m no Jew hater…just sayin’)
By RAS November 9, 2011 at 6:21 pm
FITSnews has a niche, SC politics and soft porn. National politics is really too complex for Willie. And foreign policy? well…
Snodgrass has it right. We took out Saddam for Israel. We spent all our money and political capital on that war. Israel has been a heavy-handed bully for 60+ years, conducting slow-motion ehnic cleansing, while stalling and negotiating in bad faith. The State of Israel is controlled by religious nuts, not too different than the religious nuts on the other side (or the religious nuts we have here in the good ole US of A)
So why do we do what we do? Because the religious nuts we have here think the Jews are God’s chosen people, and if that’s true, we want to choose them too. Also, the fact that 24% of the US Senate is Jewish American doesn’t hurt Israel’s case either.
By BigT November 9, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Check out Sad: He (or she) is the poster child for “Articulate” in the liberal party…
Is it any wonder Obama is polling in the 30s…
Brilliant…
Sad: When you can’t successfully counter logic and reason, it may be better to just STFU. And save some face…(:
By CNSYD November 9, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Sad, what is sad is you citing wikipedia as a source.
By Carl Childers November 9, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Hey ?,
I never said we should wipe anyone out. How did you infer that from ANYTHING I said. I used that as a point of reference about the President of Iran.
I also stated I am not someone who can interpret Arabic. Is there anyone on this board who actually can? If not, we are ALL going by the interpretations of others.
Heaven knows no one doing the interpretations has an agenda, so we can all trust what they say.
“That’s the IRANIAN GOV’T itself. I’m assuming you read the various translations of his statement, but regardless of the disagreement over their literal translation why would we simply not take the word of the gov’t itself?”
Because we are not sure we can trust the Government of Iran. That is the point. If we trust them and they DO have malevolent intentions, the world is in danger. If we don’t trust them, we may be able to stop malevolence.
Besides, isn’t their President the government’s spokesman?
By snodgrass November 9, 2011 at 7:08 pm
“Because we are not sure we can trust the Government of Iran.”
And if the Iranian people asked you to make the case that that OUR government can be trusted, how would you assure them that we are the good guys?
By Sad November 9, 2011 at 7:44 pm
T, discerning your idea of “reason” is like trying to discern the meaning of “I am the Walrus”.
Thank you for giving your Luddite opinion on the use of internet references CNSYD. God forbid we use modern day sources of information to try to discern fact from fiction. Instead I should have referenced some library book catalog numbers for you, right? Or maybe a more “acceptable” form of history/opinion? Maybe MSNBC, CNN, or FOX news, right?
Pingback: US, Chinese Officials Discuss Food Safety—do chinese people eat american food - Find Your own Business here - Make Money and Have Fun
By toyota kawaski November 10, 2011 at 9:08 am
Sad=Man-d
By Sad November 10, 2011 at 10:43 am
Unless Man-d is hiding brains in her boobs I doubt it.
By Staffer November 10, 2011 at 11:43 am
Armageddon! Armageddon! that tactic has lost its luster. Now even the idiots that bought it the first thirty times are reviewing the moral of “the Boy who Cried Wolf.” After Obama was elected Glenn Beck centered an entire show around an Orsen Welles style prediction of the world within only few years under the Obama Administration: the Dow Jones below 5000, Communist bread lines, terrorist cells attacking rural American communities.
Here’s a shot at the truth: Certain people are going to hate Obama no matter what he does and certain people are going to love Obama no matter what he does. Yes, there are philosophical differences: the purpose of government, etc. But on most foreign policy issues, there are no left or right distinctions, only the haters and the lovers. Its more about the indians than the arrows, the speaker than the spoken. If a Republican were president right now and making the very same foreign policy decisions that Obama has made, the Democrats would be writing articles just like this one.
By jdc November 10, 2011 at 11:52 am
Obama is a failure and a creature of his upbringing, and his upbringing is America must be brought to her knees. No one should be surprised at what has happened his history made it clear. What is surprising is the number of people that seem to have rolled over and accepted the circumstances as irreversible. This country has been through far worse, WWI wnd WWII come to mind and recovered. We can survive a loathsome America hating punk like Obama and we will.
By Carl Childers November 10, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Snodgrass,
We are the good guys…by definition.
By ? November 10, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Dangerous assumption Carl.
I’m sure the Nazi’s, Mao’s red Army, and a host of other felt the same.
By snodgrass November 10, 2011 at 3:56 pm
“We are the good guys…by definition.”
You would have made a wonderful Pharisee.
By Carl Childers November 10, 2011 at 5:15 pm
And the Muslim extremists feel that way also.
We do good in the world. I believe that. If you don’t, fine, that is your opinion. Luckily more people believe what I do than what you do.
Have a good day. Enjoy your freedom to speak your mind. I am sure that the good folks in many other countries wish they had the same free speech rights.
By the way, to any of my brothers out there: Happy birthday. Semper Fi.
By The usual November 10, 2011 at 9:43 pm
“Enjoy your freedom to speak your mind. I am sure that the good folks in many other countries wish they had the same free speech rights.”
There’s always the “subtle” implication that we are able to speak freely due to soldiers. It’s a nice little slight for anyone suggesting the US gov’t might be “wrong” or not a good actor(which there is plenty of history to suggest that has been the case at times).
It is natural for a Marine, or most other armed service members to have a strong sense of loyalty and duty. It is loyalty to the gov’t of course. I would expect no less and rest assured they are trained that way. The job of a Marine is not to examine gov’t policy, it is to take orders, period.
Let us not forget, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” for certain members of society that don’t wish to discern the truth of any given situation regardless of its implications toward our gov’t-which is clearly not neccessarily a reflection on America’s people(including soldiers).
By political hack November 11, 2011 at 1:35 am
The so called liberation of other nations of their backwardness and the introduction of the theology of democracy is merely an overworked guise for neocolonialism. I have the utmost respect for members of the military service, but I don’t need all this fascist propaganda telling me to support wars that I think are totally unnecessary and are going to bring more backlash in the future to this nation due to a unification of radical Islam and a further usurpation of my rights and liberties at home because we have the Patriot Act and any other police state policies that come from it. I love my country just as much if not more than these servicemen and women and it is my duty to educate myself and question the policies that are hidden behind the veil of being for the “public good.” Further, to think that abandoning our current state of imperialism is backwards and old fashioned is being narrow minded. To become isolationist as one may call it does not involve an abandonment of free trade, it promotes specialization of capital on a more broad scale because nations pursue what is best in their own interests. Nuclear war would always be a bad business decision the more freedom the markets have. One would not wish to wipe off the face of the earth a nation that makes the other nation rich from trade. I personally think the economic pillaging and raping of a country is far more destructive to it than any nuclear warhead can bring, and due to the current system, people become rich off it. For instance, the United States today, Russia of a couple decades ago, Germany in the 20s, and dozens of other countries in Asia and Europe before it.
War is what a government desires most when it has failed it’s citizens. It allows them total control of the economy, it turns the attention from them and on the “enemy.” It may also allow some interesting spoils if it comes out victorious. It promotes unquestioned nationalism.
By MeMyself November 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Well, at least we know where FITS stands, huh? It’s good to be reminded this place ain’t just news & boobs.
By Mr.Wikipedia November 13, 2011 at 12:07 am
From now on I will only use The Richland County Library for my research here at FitsNews. I have just bought The Dewey Decimal System for Dummies and I will finish reading it by next week. The head librarian has saved all the back issues of Time Magazine and and a ton of old newspapers for me so I can read up on all the important stuff.
The library has a great collection of old World Book Encyclopedias and even better, some Illustrated Collier’s Encyclopedias. They smell musty but facts are facts right? I found some great books in the research area that were donated by The Daughters of The American Revolution awhile back, so I will be able to get a good understanding of American history.
All that wiki stuff is probably fabricated and the footnotes are all probably bogus, too. The homeless people read a lot of the magazines so I probably will not be able to get to them most days. Other than that I look forward to debating the FitsNews mental giants that hang out here. Should be fun.
By No Pledge. November 13, 2011 at 8:16 pm
We have AMPLE military capability. WTF is that babble about?
The capability to act worldwide has always required ALLIES and CLIENTS. In regions where you don’t have those, you don’t get to play.
BTW,Germany is more “Socialist” than the former Soviets and the Chinese and is far better run than the US and more productive per capita.
The idea that every practice must be taken to extremes is silly. Extremes are silly. The US isn’t becoming “Socialist”, and isn’t even close. That’s just name-calling designed to stroke scared old people.