Earlier today (last night in the U.S.), the Democratic nominees for president had a stand-up debate. Amongst them, Joe Biden was asked who he believed poses the most immediate threat to America. Biden’s answer was “North Korea”.
Sphere: Related Content-
Sponsored Links
-
English Books on Korea (and CDs and DVDs, too)
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
-
Flickr Photos
-
Recent Comments
- swlee on Open Thread #49
- aaronm on God Damn It, You Can’t Even Go to a Baseball Game Without All These Foreign Jackasses Ruining It All
- bbundaegi on So Much for the Fifth Column…
- pawikirogi on So Much for the Fifth Column…
- Western Confucian on Don’t Watch Gay Porn — It’ll Make You Gay
- Pawi's conscience on So Much for the Fifth Column…
- Mr Kim on Seoul’s War on Porn
- pawikirogi on So Much for the Fifth Column…
- The Goat on So Much for the Fifth Column…
- Sonagi on So Much for the Fifth Column…
- Lazy_Contractor on Don’t Watch Gay Porn — It’ll Make You Gay
- bumfromkorea on So Much for the Fifth Column…
- pawikirogi on So Much for the Fifth Column…
- Colonel Kilgore on Tragic Death in Daegu
- cm on So Much for the Fifth Column…
-
Most Popular Posts
- So, This is Probably Why English Teachers Shouldn't Post Photos of Themselves with Club Chicks
- Lee Pani Releases More Photos
- Candlelight Rallies are Back
- Open Thread #49
- Cool Heads Prevail at the Chosun in US Beef Editorial
- Tragic Death in Daegu
- Lee Pa-ni selected Korea's second Playboy model
- Open Thread #48
- KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- Koreans have a "beef" against Korean-Americans?
-
Archives
-
Meta
72 Comments
Obviously he can’t answer “Joe Biden”.
Come on Mr Carr, he will go down with the long list of great leaders like Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown!
It’s too bad Joe Biden is so young and healthy (a hale and hearty 65); we’ll be listening to his crap for many more years. The man is “articulate, clean, and sharp” for sure, with an admirable personal life, but completely full of crap and a little bit sticky-fingered with others’ ideas (he’s an inveterate plagiarist). Plus I can’t stand looking at his combination bad-plugs-and-combover ‘do.
R. Elgin: Where’s da reference? You saw this in a newspaper or on TV? Hmmmm. Or just common knowledge that Biden is a hardliner trying to get some attention against more serious candidates…?
1. Who’s.
2. After his embarassing comments on Baraka Obama, Biden needs to just chill. Actually, as Brendan points out, Biden was exposed as a blowhard plagiarist years ago and should have bowed out of public life by now.
If that’s what he said, there will be an on-line video and/or transcript somewhere. The Democratic debate was carried live on MSNBC and then repeated several times, to include today (Sunday here in CONUS).
If you believe the present US ground forces defense arrangement with ROK should be continued indefinitely, then a Democratic Pres victory in 08 will be your cup of tea. I’d expect all the first tier potential Dem nominees (not just Biden) to look to continue it, as an easy way of demonstrating their ability to be “tough on defense”.
In compensation for accusations to the contrary from a Republican nominee such as Giuliani or McCain, over the issue of how and when to withdraw US forces from Iraq.
Debate transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18352397/
On the other hand, as a probable Republican voter in the 2008 election, Joe Biden is a standout potential Democratic nominee. Of all the current Democrats angling for the nomination (save perhaps Chris Dodd), Joe Biden presents the greatest opportunity for a Kerryesque fumble of the election no matter who the Republican opponent might be.
Free advice to the Democratic Party: Although a ham sandwich ought to be able to win this 2008 election in a walkover after four years of “battlefield preparation” by the media, you are not obliged to nominate the ham sandwich! Give us someone compelling and attractive, who doesn’t sneer at pro-life Christians, gun-rights voters, and national-security issues — and you might get our votes. Even if his policies (Obama) probably will be disastrous.
My money, however, is on the ham sandwich.
Bipolar, I was sitting up in a hotel, watching this live through MSMBC. It came out of Biden’s mouth. Brendon is probably closer to something that passes for reality in that it is an easy thing for Mr. Biden to say since most Americans just know how scary North Koreans really are (sarcasm here).
It seemed that the Democrats have the best field of candidates yet. Obama and Kuchinich sounded quite good. Clinton exuded the smarmy “status quo” feeling though she is a hard worker and undoubtedly capable. This alleged debate was more like a quiz game show though.
And I’m Mama Cass.
Anything and everything may come out of Biden’s mouth, because it’s always open. He’s a world-class bloviator infatuated with the sound of his own voice.
Hillary will win the Dem nomination. Then, the Foster thing will blow up on her face.
Bushes have been preparing for this since eight years ago. Maybe Jeff Bush will announce his candidacy near the end of this year.
Forteen years ago - two Clinton presidency and in the middle of the second Bush presidency.
Ruddy and Condi, Where eagles dare.
John McCain will be President, doesn’t matter who runs against him.
White Whiter was really weird. Foster wasn’t the only guy who killed himself to protect the Clintons. A certain Navy Admiral did, too. A Clinton appointee fresh on the job.
It will be another 50-50 showdown and McCain will barely win it. Obama, Hiliary, same result.
Brendon Carr wrote,
I can assure you that the Democratic Party doesn’t want your advice, free or not. I’m glad that for your sake, you aren’t trying to sell it.
As for the pro-lifers, only 22% of Americans fit that billing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....ted_States The Democratic Party is no more responsible than the Republican Party for the fact that abortion is legal in the US. The truth is that Americans from both “red” and “blue” states engage in a lot of unprotected premarital and extramarital sex, and that means a lot of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. As distasteful as that notion might seem to many conservative Christians, it is the reason why the overwhelming majority of Americans wants reasonable legal access to abortion.
If you are upset about being ignored by politicians, you should really direct your anger at the Republicsn Party whose presidential nominees may pay lip service to being “pro-life” but display no courage when it comes to this supposed conviction. Have you heard of George Jr. doing anything to change the status quo when it comes to abortion? But he certainly tried to stir the pot with his little hate-filled idea to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. Of course, the American people were too smart to buy into that crock of demogoguery. It’s amazing how any mention of the constitutional ban on gay marriage completely dissipated into the thin air once the mid-term elections were over. Trust me, if it wasn’t painfully obvious that the overwhelming majority of the American public believes in abortion rights, Bush and the Republicans would be utilizing every divide-and-conquer method in the book to tilt the political scale in their favor.
And as for gun rights, nobody is going to take your guns away. You saw the VA Tech shooting spree. Please. Damn near anyone can get their hands on firearms in this country. It’s a tragic fact.
As for national security, the US spends more on its military than all the other nations combined. And that was true during the Clinton years as well, and it will be true even if a Democrat does win the ‘08 election. Maybe we should divert some of that military spending so that we spend more on education than all the other nations combined–wow, wouldn’t that be a neat idea? Maybe our children will be able to point to Iraq on the map rather than to have to die there.
bluetranslator, not to burst your bubble, but isn’t it disingenuous to state that the “US spends more on its military than all other nations combined?” After all, as you seem to be talking in absolute terms, the US economy is the largest on the planet, and at least two of the other G7 economies are constitutionally constrained in terms of their militaries.
The per-capita or military-spending-as-percentage-of-GDP/GNP metrics are more revealing. Using info from 1995 (sorry for the old data), the TIME 2000 almanac lists our friends the Norks as #1, spending over 28% of their GNP on the military. The US, at 3.8%, didn’t even make it into the top 35. If you believe the more recent CIA World Factbook data, Rwanda now tops the list, with the US’s 4.05% of GDP at #30.
bluetranslator, I think I can show you a similar 25% range for support nation wide regarding,
Affirmative action in schools and workplaces.
Same sex marriages.
Higher taxes to give healthcare to all,
Gun ownership
Taxing the hell out of cigarettes
Legal temporary worker visas from South America
Free trade with China
What’s the point? It’s all just a lobbying force. Not a single one of them represents the wishes of all Americans as a whole. The 2 major parties picked whom they wanted to take money from, and they better vote that way for the people who elected them.
US may have outspent the world during Clinton, but they sure closed a lot of military bases, too.
I think you’re assuming too much. I’m not saying don’t sneer at me, I’m saying don’t sneer at them. Twenty-two percent is a lot of voters and Democrats ought to seek to embrace them along with others.
And how should pro-choice politicians “embrace” pro-life voters? Pro-lifers are especially prone to one-issue voting and aren’t going to punch the ticket of any politician who votes against any restrictions on abortion, period. Both the pro-life and the pro-choice camps keep meticulous voting records and throw their money and influence behind candidates who vote the “right” way, so it’s not an issue that politicians can duck or smile their way around.
bluetranslator, you are all over the board here. Let’s just deal with one argument at a time, military spending. Let’s suppose just for the sake of argument that the US really did spend more per capita on the military than any othewr nation, what is wrong with that? Don’t good fences make good neighbors?
Again, I believe this is a form of projection — my observation as a former Democratic voter is that it’s the pro-choice voters who fixate on the single issue. The Left’s lack of appetite for heterodoxy, and enthusiasm for intellectual tyranny, is what turned me off of them. Anyway, we’re going to see how tolerant pro-life voters and Christian conservatives can be when cross-dressing Rudy Giuliani ends up the Republican nominee.
I voted for Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and likely Barack in 2008.
0-3, then.
bluetranslator,
Have you thought about the situation where our children will have no finger to point to Iraq? Or, how about simply dead?
I remember the time, only five years ago, when everyone in America was scared. Another attack was imminent, said the famous preachers on TV (700 club to be exact). Everywhere I go, people asked me whether there would be another attack by the Islam extremists.
As Bush said, when we pull out of Iraq these terrorists will follow us home. And, kill us and our children.
Who will take the responsibility? You? Media? Democratic party?
Iraq is not VietNam. When we pull out of Iraq, it will come and bite us in the ass. Or, kill us as happened in the 9/11.
Then, these “pinko”s (I am one of them; I am a Democrat) would say, when another attack comes then we go back there. Back to Iraq, to get them as we did five years ago.
Things change. By then, Iran will have control of Iraq. And, Iran may threaten to use nuke on American soldiers. Meanwhile, more terrorists attack the US. Blow up the Disney Land.
Now if that happens, who will take the responsibility? You? Media? Democratic party?
F***!
Bush is right. Stand by your president. Iraq is not VietNam. Iraq is a situation where America must make a stand.
59% of adults favor affirmative action for women (34% oppose) and 49% favor affirmative action for racial minorities (43% oppose):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/p.....e/0623.htm
41% of all Americans (38% of men and 45% of women) support legalizing same-sex marriage (55% of 18-29 year olds):
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sect.....40121.html
Higher taxes to give healthcare to all:
“Eighty percent (up from 71 percent in 1999) say it’s more important to provide health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, than to hold down taxes but leave some people uncovered.”
http://abcnews.go.com/sections....._poll.html
“Two in every five adults (39%) live in households where one or more guns are owned. One in every six (16%) live in households with a rifle and a shotgun and a pistol.”
http://www.harrisinteractive.c.....sp?PID=234
“More than two-thirds of voters – and equally large numbers of Republicans – support creating a temporary worker program. FOX News (5/16-5/18) found 63% of all voters support a temporary worker program and 63% of Republicans supporting it too. Similarly, CBS (5/16-5/17) found 61% of Americans and 62% of Republicans support a temporary worker program.”
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6348
“An ABC/Washington Post poll that did not mention either the MFN or NTR terms, but simply asked whether the US “should have free trade with China on the same terms it (the US) gives its main trading partners,” did get somewhat higher support. Most recently (April 2001) 48% answered yes, while 45% said no (June 1998: 44% yes, 46% no; ABC).”
http://www.americans-world.org.....hina12.cfm
Baduk! Bad language — from a good Christian such as yourself?
Actually, I blame myself. I set a bad example, by rebuking you in too-strong terms earlier (”letting your mouth overload your ###”). I humbly apologize — I’ve felt bad about it ever since.
Just because some young man went on a rampage, putting not less than 3 bullets each into approx 47 people at VT — well, that’s no excuse for bad manners and vulgarity on my part.
Please revert to the “old” Baduk — the one who never uses bad language, no matter how provoked. For my part, I solemnly pledge to never use any epithet about you any stronger than “mercurial”.
Paul H.,
I have used bad languages before.
Recently, I am mad at American media. It is corrupting American public, suggesting that only Bush wanted Iraq War.
Here are the fact:
1) Iraqi pilots start flying into the “No fly” zone and start dog-tagging the American fighters.
2) Iraq kicked out nuclear inspectors.
3) Hussein praised the 9/11 attack and promised that he would continue the fight against the Infidels.
Here is the less known fact:
Hussein was in the process of forming Euro-only trading block for oil.
Iraqis and Iranians want to attack America. Yes, it is the fact. Al-Caida is a tip of an iceberg. There are many organizations in the middleEast whose aim is to destroy America.
As Bush said, America must fight the terrorists where they live. Otherwise, these terrorists will come over to the US and make the US the battlefield.
Is that what the media wants? Who will be responsible when these things happen?
Who?
America’s present situation is like this:
She has a LOT of problems that could be more easily dealt with if she were just a Fascist nation.
Also, America is schizophrenic in that she acts like an empire, has typical empire headaches, but isn’t officially an empire, nor necessarily want to be one. Either be an empire or don’t be.
Someday America may just decide to screw everything and be a Fascist Empire. Then things will get really interesting and stuff from the Book of Revelations will start making lots of sense.
When Bush was focused on Afghanistan, Kerry complained that Iraq was real threat. When Bush liberated Iraq, Kerry complained that he was ignoring Afghanistan. This is more of the same nonesense. Even the head of the CIA has now admitted that the North Korean “nuclear” test last year was a failure — probably just a big load of fertilizer. The country is a basket case, not a major threat to anyone other than South Korea, and it is South Korean policy to keep NK afloat by sending them $1 billion in subsidies a year. The Six Party Talks will cost the U.S. $300 million and USFK is $20 billion a year — resources diverted from the pivotal struggle for the survival of civilization that’s going on in Iraq.
kauffner
Well put!
Here we go again/still.The freaks of the far ends of the spectrum, dredging up quotes and statistics to support their extreme views.I’m glad I’m not educated enough to do that.Work,bathe,eat,sleep,and fervently wish that the apathetic middle of the road masses will vote moderate this time,that’s my life.
Brendon Carr wrote:
“Again, I believe this is a form of projection — my observation as a former Democratic voter is that it’s the pro-choice voters who fixate on the single issue. “
MY projection versus YOUR observation. Oh, that’s a good one!
Oh, and you still didn’t answer my question about how pro-choice politicians are supposed to embrace pro-lifers.
I voted for Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and likely Barack in 2008.
Ya gotta hand it to N.K. he is brave.
Preferably with some sense of chastity.
I’m beginning to regret mentioning Mr. Biden’s comment but I was amused at the strangeness of Baduk’s mentioning blowing up Disney Land. That sounds like a perversely American style of entertainment, indeed.
R. Elgin, Make it Stop, Make it STOP!
fred random wrote in #17
“bluetranslator, not to burst your bubble, but isn’t it disingenuous to state that the “US spends more on its military than all other nations combined?” After all, as you seem to be talking in absolute terms, the US economy is the largest on the planet, and at least two of the other G7 economies are constitutionally constrained in terms of their militaries.
The per-capita or military-spending-as-percentage-of-GDP/GNP metrics are more revealing.”
No, it’s not disingenuous at all. Yes, as you mentioned, the US economy may be the largest in the world, but it certainly is not larger than all of the other economies combined. Yet the US military spending is larger than the combined military spending of the rest of the world.
You are right in pointing out that some nations have higher per capita military expenditures than the US. Of course, these nations generally have infinitesimal economies compared to that of the US. They just spend a larger percentage of that paltry sum. These nations, North Korea and Rwanda are two examples you provided, are governed by dictators who place their own self-survival above all else. Thus, we see that the people of these nations starve to death while their miliataries parade around.
railwaycharm wrote in #21
“bluetranslator, you are all over the board here. Let’s just deal with one argument at a time, military spending. Let’s suppose just for the sake of argument that the US really did spend more per capita on the military than any othewr nation, what is wrong with that? Don’t good fences make good neighbors?”
I addressed three issues which Brendon Carr had brought up in a single post–pro-life Christians, gun rights, and national security. You can choose to deal with one or none of them, but don’t try to turn this personal again because you have decided that you don’t like me or my views by getting on my case for choosing to deal with all three issues another poster addressed.
As for your question as to whether or not the US military spending–largest in the world and larger than that of all the other nations combined–has created “good neighbors,” the proof is in the pudding. All indications are that there is more anti-US sentiment around the world than ever. Does that answer your question?
And by the way, I’d be terribly remiss if I didn’t point out the fact that we are commemorating the 4-year anniversary of George Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech when he declared that major combat operations were over in Iraq. More than 3,300 US troops have died, and only God knows how many Iraqi civilians have died. But who cares, right? No one in the US media bothers with such minor details as American lives are inherently more valuable than lives of these miserable camel jockeys. Well, there is a site called the http://www.iraqbodycount.net which has CONFIRMED a minimum of 62,760 Iraqi civilian deaths thanks to George, Jr’s liberation.
How does George Jr. sleep at night? I guess it helps when you don’t think about these things.
But those sorts of calculations are disingenuous bullshit.
That’s over four years of war, right? Would you believe 160,000 Americans died in traffic accidents over the same period? That goddamn Bush! (It’s this sort of thinking, by the way, that produces the ham-sandwich nominee. Keep it up — as a libertarian I want the Democrats as far from the White House as possible for as long as possible.)
Your supposed 62,760 Iraqi civilian deaths (about 15,000 per year) must also be compared to the supposed 300,000 that Saddam Hussein murdered over the 23 years of his dictatorship, not to mention the millions of casualties he caused in his senseless eight-year war of attrition with Iran. 300,000 in 23 years works out to about 13,000 a year; 62,760 in four years works out to 15,690 a year. Is that such a dire difference, given that Taleban-style loonies are running around the country now? What portion of the excess fatalities, if any, do you attribute to the car-bombing and market-bombing tactics of the enemy? It can’t all be John Rambo’s fault.
There are a lot of people in America and in Iraq as well as the wider Middle East who believe that freedom, or a chance at freedom, is worth dying for. Because your media lie to you in pursuit of their political vendetta against George Bush, you don’t get to know the truth. In the coming weeks and months, now that more American boots are on the ground and the Iraqis themselves join the fight in greater numbers, we will see Iraq start to stabilize. Kurdistan is free and prospering; al-Anbar Province (Sunni stronghold including Ramadi and Fallujah) is stabilizing rapidly. Baghdad will be a hellhole for a while yet, and may always be a hellhole, but their freedom is worth a try.
Or you can vote for Kim Jong Bill. He’s got a plan for Iraq that’s a complete abdication of American responsibility, and a fanciful bit of wishcraft as well.
Much has been made of “mission accomplished” – erroneously. The comment of course referred to combat operations in taking Iraq, and did not mean there would be no combat operations in the occupation of Iraq. However, while frequently taken out of the obvious context, Bush no doubt did not foresee that we’d be in worse condition four years later.
The U.S. media doesn’t bother with these details? I’d say U.S. media is fixated on them, so I’m not sure what you’re reading/watching/listening to. Public access?
States’ rights. Let Taxachusetts be a shining beacon of 24-hour drive-thru abortion clinics, and leave Missouri be.
Roe v. Wade was a torturously-bad precedent in terms of its legal reasoning and should be vulnerable on that basis alone. This issue really ought to be returned to the states.
I’ve got a “nuanced” position on the abortion issue: It’s certainly not for my family, since abortion is definitely morally wrong, but as a libertarian I can’t say that it should be illegal because of my moral qualms. But similarly, I don’t support an unlimited right (there must be some restrictions — for example, pulling the squirming baby partway out and sucking out its brains surely ought to be illegal, since it’s infanticide) and don’t believe the Federal government ought to pay for it.
Most of the people who disagree with me aren’t evil, or sons-of-bitches (except for NARAL and the hippies, of course). We simply disagree, and I’d like to be able to get along. But I wish they would stop describing good-hearted Christians as evil when they express moral qualms about something like this.
user-81, nice stats.
See you at the voting booth, though.
That’s where it really counts.
Good law or bad law, once a law, it resists change.
R. Elgin,
The TwinTower(WTC) represented America. That is why Islam terrorists targetted the building.
I live in California. When the people in the know followed the same reasoning and assessed possible targets in CA, they came up with the GoldenGate Bridge and the DisneyLand. Possibly some atheletic stadiums like Dodger’s stadium and Giant’s stadium.
I don’t think these terrorists will destroy the “HOLLYWOOD” sign in the mountain.
bluetranslator,
63,000? So what? They killed each other.
What do you think of 3,000 innocent lives died in WTC attack? They drew the first blood (from the movie, First Blood - Stallon).
Is it just Osama or the entire Islam religion has something do with it? And, if the entire MiddleEast is breeding terrorists who plan to attack America for their religious beliefs, what can we do about it?
Just sit and wait for another attack? Weave a peace quilt with three thousand names and give to Taleban leader to show how hurt we are?
Sometimes you have to be proactive. Go where they live and deal with it there. In Iraq.
# 29, Baduk:
“As Bush said, America must fight the terrorists where they live. Otherwise, these terrorists will come over to the US and make the US the battlefield.”
I am not entirely sure, but Baduk may have a point here. They are already trying to make Europe the battlefield…
In any event, I am advocating strong Trans-Atlantic ties and a common and coherent Middle East policy.
Brendon Carr wrote:
“Roe v. Wade was a torturously-bad precedent in terms of its legal reasoning and should be vulnerable on that basis alone. This issue really ought to be returned to the states.”
I’m pro-choice and I agree with you.
“I’ve got a “nuanced” position on the abortion issue: It’s certainly not for my family, since abortion is definitely morally wrong, but as a libertarian I can’t say that it should be illegal because of my moral qualms. But similarly, I don’t support an unlimited right (there must be some restrictions — for example, pulling the squirming baby partway out and sucking out its brains surely ought to be illegal, since it’s infanticide) and don’t believe the Federal government ought to pay for it.”
Most Americans, including myself, agree with you. “Pro-choice” embraces a wide spectrum of views on abortion. I call myself “pro-choice” because I do not support a ban on abortion. I do support restrictions that take into account fetal development and the health of the mother. If the life of the mother is in danger, then the Feds should pay just like they would for any other life-saving procedure.
Most of the people who disagree with me aren’t evil, or sons-of-bitches (except for NARAL and the hippies, of course). We simply disagree, and I’d like to be able to get along. But I wish they would stop describing good-hearted Christians as evil when they express moral qualms about something like this.
Now who’s projecting? Ardent pro-choice groups like the NARAL use words like “intolerant” to describe zealous pro-lifers. They do use the word “evil” to describe the continuing violence by ‘pro-life’ extremists:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
I know that you abhor such violence, but by complaining about pro-choice Americans “describing good-hearted Christians as evil” without acknowledging the very real and illegal acts of harassment, threats, violence, and murder that continue to be carried out in the name of “pro-life” is being a cyclops.
#16 bluetrans:
“…Maybe we should divert some of that military spending so that we spend more on education than all the other nations combined–wow, wouldn’t that be a neat idea? Maybe our children will be able to point to Iraq on the map rather than to have to die there.”
Besides ending the Iraq operation, where else do you suggest the US cut its defense budget?
US military aircraft fleet procurement and upkeep are an enormous expense. US maintains 4 different “air forces”! Five, if you count the Coast Guard’s aircraft.
The benefit: US can run combat air operations to seize control of the airspace over Korea, Taiwan straits, Persian Gulf, continental Europe (over nations of NATO). And anywhere else in the world that US can float its acft carriers (prb can’t do it over continental Russia and China, also non-nuclear ops over Indian subcontinent would be a problem).
While maintaining control of North American airspace. With of course assistance of US allies’ air forces, however, in all cases these allies are dependent upon Uncle Sam for unique capabilities.
If necessary, all these areas could be operated in simultaneously, though this would probably require some prep time (perhaps as little as two weeks?)
We (the US taxpayers) can save an enormous amount of money “for the children” by “standing down” from a lot of this capability. Though I’m sure our “allies” have come to take US aircover overhead as part of their “natural birthright” — unconsciously, in the same way that they know the sun is going to come up in the morning and the drinkable water is going to flow out of the taps in their houses.
ROK isn’t evidently too worried about a possible lack of US air cover: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/...../#comments
And the Royal New Zealand AF (are they still “royal”, or have NZ’er’s voted for a republic yet?) has completely eliminated their own offensive acft capability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....st_century
Perfectly understandable. Why should NZ be attacked when they harbor no ill will for anyone?
Same thing for the ROK; they desire only to live in peace with all mankind. The question is: why exactly should US taxpayers do for others what they see no need to do for themselves?
I say that this is the age of Aquarius! Let the sunshine in, stand down these expensive US forces and bring them home.
For the children.
The US should find ways to turn her military machine into a profit turning organization. Obviously, the US excels in warmaking and miltech like no other. Other countries can then outsource their defense to the US the same way corporations outsource call centers and software programming to India.
Too late — they already have, except they don’t pay for the outsourcing (cf. the Republic of Korea). That’s what gives Europe the ability to sneer at the Pentagon’s massive budget and claim moral superiority for their relatively paltry expenditure. “America spends more than the rest of the world combined” is brought to you by freeloading Eurotrash and American hippies. Then whenever doe-eyed children (so long as they’re not black) suffer in some hellish third-world conflict, they cry “The world community should do something!” while neglecting that the “world community” has no carrier battle groups, no air cover, no airlift, and no logistics. That all comes from Uncle Sucker. In fact, without Yankee bucks at the UN, they can’t pay their Pakistani mercenary “peacekeepers”.
You’re not going to make me rattle off a novel about 6 years of Big Government Moralism and the newfound Republican love of the Nanny State, are you? Because if the last 6 years have taught libertarians anything, it’s that Republicans have proven to be just as bad or worse as Democrats.
This pretty much says it all:
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said yesterday that President Bush views America as a ”10-year-old child” in need of the sort of protection provided by a parent.
http://www.boston.com/news/nat....._a_parent/
Thanks Daddy.
Regardless of criticisms of George Bush, the fact is he’s not standing for re-election in 2008. And bad as he may be, those Democrats appear to be worse. Fear of their impulses will have me voting Republican again.
The other issue is national defense. Where is the Democrat who can wear the mantle of FDR, Give ‘Em Hell Harry, or even JFK? Democratic leadership put an end to Hitler and turned back Kim Il Sung. Where are those Democrats? Have they forgotten that Americans are ready to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to ensure the survival and the success of liberty? Read JFK’s inaugural, and substitute the Taleban for the Politburo — there can be no doubt we face a similar struggle, and need the same resolve. (The only difference I can see is his support for the UN — in 1961 the UN had not yet proved itself completely corrupt.)
None of the current Democrats is up to this task.
Paul H. Within the Commonwealth armies, “royal” is an honorific that is bestowed upon a unit in recognition for its performance in battle, or war. (Royal Green Jackets, Royal Irish Rangers, Royal 22e French Canadien Regt., etc) I assume both the various “Royal” Air Forces and Navies performed similar service (WWI, perhaps?). If so, becoming a Republic is unlikely to strip away the “Royal”. (Considering how this post has branched out, this response to your aside is hardly “off-topic”)
You need to stop getting your information from Jon Carry and Code Pink.
The average age of US casualties — fatal and non-fatal — in Iraq is a tender 27. Is 27 a child? Twenty-seven is approaching retirement age in the NFL. I had started my law practice by that age, and had a daughter of my own; I’d voted in three elections (for Dukakis, Clinton, and Bob Dole) and lived on my own for eight years. By 27 I’d visited 15 countries, in fact. While I know my folks love me, when I was 27 I was not their little baby except in memory.
The young adults who can’t point out Iraq on the map can’t get into the Army anyway. The all-volunteer force, even with recent relaxations in entry standards, is much better-educated than the rest of America. So sorry, we need not feel sorry for the poor stupid suckers who got duped — that’s a tired trope.
Even the worn-out race-baiting claim of oppressed minorities being ground up by the military machine proves false — 70% of US casualties are white.
Ironic then, that fear of Republican foreign policy impulses are what led to the Democratic steamroller last fall. And given the fact that a large majority of Americans don’t exactly share your pie-in-the-sky, hopelessly optimistic view of the prospects for stability in Iraq (exactly how many Friedman Units does “weeks and months” equal anyway?), those fears will likely lead to another steamroller for the donkeys in 08′.
Like I said, a ham sandwich ought to be able to beat George Bush and the inheritors of his mantle, especially since a “large majority” of Americans have been led by their noses to the conclusion that “Bush Lied, People Died” — even though that’s not true.
And they were also led by their noses to the conclusion that an imminent mushroom cloud was on the horizon if a war wasn’t launched immediately, and that Iraqis would be throwing flowers at our troops rather than planting IEDs, and that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for reconstruction, and that the Mission was Accomplished, and that hanging Saddam would be a turning point, and that each Iraqi election would be a turning point, and that the Iraqi troops would stand up and allow us to stand down. Need I go on?
I’ll go ahead and assume you didn’t complain about the ease by which the American people were led by their noses to all of those conclusions.
You strike me as a generally reasonable and logical feller Brendon, but you also seem to be part of the crew that thinks that car bombs in Baghdad aren’t the problem, but the media reporting about car bombs in Baghdad are the problem. As if a media blackout of bad news from Iraq would somehow lead to less bad news in Iraq.
I’m sorry to say that a crew that promotes that kind of cheap scapegoating and reality deflection is not a crew I’d imagined you ever associate yourself with.
let me ask the Democrats. What do you think will happen in Iraq or the Middle East if the US leaves completely by March 2008?
Come on.
I’m all ears.
iheartblueballs: you know I can appreciate your views of “The Donkey Club” but, in comparison with the Republicans and their elephant mascot, the situation is very much a choice between the inedible and the unpalatable. Neither party has done very well for their country.
Considering the original comment by Mr. Biden (back on topic here), about North Korea, it makes one wonder if he and others believe such as well and if a Democratic leadership would result in anything different for this part of the world.
There is a profound disconnect between the drumbeat of gloom from the mainstream media and the backchannel talk amongst active-duty military and veterans. I have many friends in Iraq now, and we are in contact from time to time. Our media consistently lies to us about our President, our forces, and their mission — and I have lost all confidence in the accuracy of reportage concerning Iraq. They lie and it is deeply irresponsible.
I’m all for bad news because it’s part of the truth. But bring me truth, not “correct” reporting.
So the media lies.
Is George Tenet lying too?
\\//
⊂(@ @)⊃
—oOO— (_)— OOo—
Sorry, I meant:
\\//
⊂(@ @)⊃
—oOO— (_)— OOo—
George Tenet, I believe is telling some truth and some lies.
What’s interesting is that he decided to open up after getting paid, not under oath, but after being paid. Millions.
Then, he comes up with a conclusion,
“US must do more in the Middle East”
Tenet got in the govt spot via Bill Clinton.
How does “US must do more in the Middle East” jive with a “March 2008 total US withdrawal from Iraq”.
Dogbertt, what do you think will happen after the withdrawal? Is that even a solution?
Aww criminey, that didn’t work at all
Shoot me Mr. Sheriff.
Probably, yes. He sure does have some shakey recollections, and it’s interesting he waited so long to share them with us.
Michael 63 and 64,
Please help. I haven’t kept up on my symbolic logic notation after grad school.
Sorry, I was trying for a guy looking over a wall and it got all fubar.
On topic: I can’t stand any of the Democrats or Republicans. Have a nice day.
That’s a very good question, wjk, but I can’t give you an answer. I just cannot envision a perpetual occupation.
Re George Tenet: Christopher Hitchens does a masterful job of deconstructing his “sniveling, self-justifying new book” on Slate:
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2165269/nav/tap1/
#40 railwaycharm wrote:
and got this response:
B.T. actually, NO. First of all, I do not know you so I have not decided if I like you or not. Not to put to fine a point on my question…… I will put it to you another way. In light of the attacks on American soil, not unlike Perl Harbor, would you prefer that we roll the clocks back the Carter administration where The United States was the worlds door-mat?