Guns, Guns Guns

Thank you for the clarification on which comment you were referring too.

President Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were experiments to modify Islamic cultures by exporting democracy. Less obvious but more important were the non violent tactics to reform Pakistan. Ironically with Musharif's consent and cooperation. One suspects that Bush persuaded Musharif to relinquish his dictatorial power by threatening to nuke him into the stone age.

Iraq and Afghanistan have been unsuccessful. Bush made mistakes but Obama seems to have failed intentionally. It seems obvious that tyranny is the natural order for Islamic countries. Obama's carefree use of drones for targeted assassinations combined with his grandstanding on the Osama Bin Laden execution alienated the Pakistani people and discredited the moderate, Democratically elected government. Obama's FUBAR of supporting the Arab Spring destroyed all remaining relationships with once "moderate" Arab regimes that had been US allies.

Given this deterioration of the political situation and the fact that the US is becoming unwilling to expend blood and treasure to "liberate" peoples who really don't cherish liberty, neo-isolationism is the only logical strategy. It is hoped that a policy of strict non-interventionism will effectively avoid provocation of future terrorist attacks such as 9-11. Bin Laden stated that 9-11 was retribution for the US war to expel Iraq from Kuwait and sanctions on Iraq. The fact that some of the 9-11 terrorists were Kuwaitis and Saudis suggests that those people did not want US protection. Fine, the US will learn from that. If another Saddam Hussien wants to invade his neighbors, the US will not intervene even if there is genocide.

As you may recall, 9-11 involved weapons with near nuclear effects and only miraculously failed to inflict near nuclear casualties. The initial estimates of the death toll based on normal occupancy of the twin towers was 50,000 people which is comparable to the REAL as opposed to inflated fatalities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One aspect of neoisolationist policies is that if a similar attack occurs in spite of US effort to avoid provoking conflict with foreign intervention, the US response will not be to "liberate" the peoples who attacked us. Attempts to kill the perpetrators would be made of course. However; the peoples who sheltered the terrorists and celebrated the attacks (the sight of the twin towers collapsing inspired Muslims all over the world to celebrate. Only Arafat was smart enough to send out his goons to break up the street celebrations and beg Bush to not kill him) will also be held accountable. Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the US that conquest even in an effort to liberate, is expensive. Conquest is also futile. To quote Captain Roderick Blain from the Mote in Gods Eye, "conquest is expensive but extermination is cheap.". If Muslims are stupid enough to inflict mass causalities n the US ever again, the response of an isolationist President will be to retaliate with overwhelming, intentionally deadly force. As an example, if the Egyptians were to sponsor such a terrorist attack, the US would send in a B-2 to destroy the Aswan dam with an earth penetrator. The immediate casualties would be limited, but the resulting flood would destroy most of Cairo. The loss of irrigation water would of course cause massive famine. Afghanistan, Iraq along with most Muslim countries are highly dependent on less centralized irrigation systems. Destroying them would not be quite so easy, but certainly easier than invading the guilty countries and trying to impose order in a futile attempt to civilize them.

So bitch about Bush all you want because you are going to dislike the alternative even more.

Eyal wrote:I was thinking (among other examples) of your argument in the "how America is viewed" thread that

If I had been POTUS I would have responded to 9-11 by launching an overwhelming strike against Pakistan's nuclear forces and military then aided India in destroying the County. While I would have attempted to arrest or kill Bin Laden, I would have been per suing a military strategy of retribution rather than nation building in Afghanistan. I would have destroyed the irrigation and transportation infrastructure that allows the country to feed itself and export opium. I would have done this with the intention of killing a large percentage of the population to ensure that Afghanistan never sponsored an attack on the US ever again.

namelessfly wrote:I am not proposing that the US commit mass murder.

I am simply suggesting that the US should simply refuse to intervene in the next genocide.

namelessfly wrote:So bitch about Bush all you want because you are going to dislike the alternative even more.

A weak president in USA is infinitely better than a religious extremeist looney.
(Obama vs Bush jr (Bush sr was a prick, but at least he wasn´t an incompetent looney))

namelessfly wrote:
So bitch about Bush all you want because you are going to dislike the alternative even more.


A weak president in USA is infinitely better than a religious extremeist looney.
(Obama vs Bush jr (Bush sr was a prick, but at least he wasn´t an incompetent looney))

Too soon to tell. Give it 20 years and then see who was the better president. Although I'm not a huge Bush Jr fan, I'm even less of an Obama fan. So I'm betting that in the long run Bush Jr will look better. But as I've said it really is too soon to tell.

The world could have been blessed with Palin. Still we survived Ron (we start bombing in ten minutes) Reagan so anything's survivable.

Tenshinai wrote:

namelessfly wrote:So bitch about Bush all you want because you are going to dislike the alternative even more.

A weak president in USA is infinitely better than a religious extremeist looney.
(Obama vs Bush jr (Bush sr was a prick, but at least he wasn´t an incompetent looney))

The world could have been blessed with Palin. Still we survived Ron (we start bombing in ten minutes) Reagan so anything's survivable.
Tenshinai wrote:
namelessfly wrote:
So bitch about Bush all you want because you are going to dislike the alternative even more.


A weak president in USA is infinitely better than a religious extremeist looney.
(Obama vs Bush jr (Bush sr was a prick, but at least he wasn´t an incompetent looney))

Actually I think she would have been a significant improvement over Obama. However, I do think they share one flaw in common, which is the ability to work the system. That problem has seriously and negatively effected Obama's ability to govern and would have done the same for Palin.

I am not certain what you mean about "work the system.". Neither Palin or Obama had political experience on the federal level (Obama dis not do squat bas a Senator) or familial connections that would provide insight and enhance political clout.

I was impressed with Palin's track record with energy policy and the courage to take on the REPUBLICAN corruption in the Alaska oil and gas commission. Few people remember that it was Palin who forced Exxon to pay up on the Valdez tanker accident. In spite of her support for energy development, she was disposed by oil companies because she enforced contracts and increased severance taxes for legacy oil wells (ACES).

In spite of my opinions, I am willing to concede that Palin would have been in for a rough ride if she had inherited the Presidency because something had happened to McCain.

The prospects for a Palin Presidency being successful are actually enhanced by Obama's failures. Obamacare is imploding with the roll out of the website. The other flaws including Death Panels will become undeniable. Obama's ongoing foreign policy blunders will only become harder to deny and will likely result in spectacular consequences such as a nuclear 9-11.

As several posters on this board have freely indicated, their objections to Palin are predicated on anti-religious bigotry rather than any genuine understanding of her track record or policies.

biochem wrote:

The world could have been blessed with Palin. Still we survived Ron (we start bombing in ten minutes) Reagan so anything's survivable.
Tenshinai wrote:
namelessfly wrote:
So bitch about Bush all you want because you are going to dislike the alternative even more.


A weak president in USA is infinitely better than a religious extremeist looney.
(Obama vs Bush jr (Bush sr was a prick, but at least he wasn´t an incompetent looney))

Actually I think she would have been a significant improvement over Obama. However, I do think they share one flaw in common, which is the ability to work the system. That problem has seriously and negatively effected Obama's ability to govern and would have done the same for Palin.

I thought that Inwould share a slightly edited quote from a famous speech that eloquently summarizes the neoisolationist philosophy.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay no price, bear no burden, meet no hardship, support no friend, oppose no foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of anyone's liberty except our own.

This much we pledge—and no more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we once shared, we no longer pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we did not attempt to do in a host of cooperative ventures, but far more often than not those ventures were futile and provoked hostility against us. Divided, there is little we will be tempted to do—for we will no longer presume to meet a powerful challenge now that we are at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcomed to the ranks of the free, we can no longer pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall never expect to find them supporting our view. We have abandoned any hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and we remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we wish them well but no longer pledge any efforts to help them help themselves, for however brief a period might seem to be required. In the past we had deluded ourselves with the belief that our interventionism was not because the Communists may be doing it, or not because we sought their votes, but because it is right. We have learned that a free society that attempts to help the many who are poor, cannot save itself.

biochem wrote:
Actually I think she would have been a significant improvement over Obama. However, I do think they share one flaw in common, which is the ability to work the system. That problem has seriously and negatively effected Obama's ability to govern and would have done the same for Palin.

I tend to agree. The MSM would have tried harder than they did with Reagan to undercut her every action. I'm not so sure that she couldn't have managed her way around the bureaucrats just fine. We won't ever know, but Mrs. Palin's ability to actually manage people would have by itself made a huge difference in any comparison to Mr. Obama.

I saw this article on Australia pulling the last of it's troops out of Afghanistan.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/12/15 ... r-12-year/

I actually do appreciate the contribution. However; I don't share Abbot's hope that we accomplished anything. Afghanistan is about as hard core Islamic as you can get. Once foreign troops are gone the country will degenerate into anarchy or Islamic theocracy.

The only legitimate interest that the US has in Afghanistan is to ensure that they not provide a haven for terrorists that attack the US ever again. A purely punitive expedition would have been far more effective than this futile attempt at "nation building."

biochem wrote:
Too soon to tell. Give it 20 years and then see who was the better president. Although I'm not a huge Bush Jr fan, I'm even less of an Obama fan. So I'm betting that in the long run Bush Jr will look better. But as I've said it really is too soon to tell.

Riiight... PLEASE say you´re joking...

GWB is easily the worst president USA has ever had(try to come up with someone that is actively worse, just try).
Obama is so far somewhere in the lower middle of the pack, they´re not even remotely comparable.

Obama is mostly a failure because he has been unable to push through a consistent policy.
GWB is a severe failure because of what decisions he DID get through(or pushed through by questionable means).

GWB managed to leave behind one of the worst situations ever. Military bogged down in wars and working on a bundle of R&D projects only existing because of cronyism.

An economy in free fall, short term because of the housing bubble which GWB could have prevented ( or at least mitigated ) but instead exaggerated, and long term because of untenable financial policies that borrowed from the future as well as industrial policies that discouraged modernisation needed for USA not to fall behind even more(outside of high tech industry, which has to upgrade constantly anyway)...

A foreign affairs mess of so epic proportions that Obama gets a big prize just for NOT being GWB. The moron almost managed to make USA an international version of persona non grata.

Domestic policies that breaks both international treaties and national laws in merry abandon.


How that can in any way compare to the lackluster inability to "rule" of Obama? Well, anyone that thinks it does, i must question their sanity.



And you think Palin would have done better?
She has some qualities yes, but her downsides makes her even worse to handle current affairs.