This isn't the only problem.Tunisia has had the first election in their history. It might be their last. Sharia law will be the law of the land. Libya is now Sharia. Ditto for Algeria and Egypt. Syria and Yemen will fall soon and Sharia will be implemented. Lebanon is already gone. Saudi and the UAE are next. Iran's fingerprints are all over this. Democracy and Sharia are totally incompatible.There is a giant shitstorm in the making.The left applauds the "democracy" taking place in Arab lands which is nothing more than replacing dictators with religious dictators. The left has never had a foreign policy that did not turn to crap. We are now reaping Carter's abandonment of the Shah 32 years ago. Bush got sucked into the same democracy mantra thinking that we could install a representative democracy into the ME that would be an example for the rest of the Mohamedians. There are certainly some Arabs that embrace our ideals but they will get used as track grease eventually. Until the regime in Iran is toppled by the Iranian people this will never end.We can opine about zero’s ignorance or willful collusion in these events but the reality is that he will be gone when the shit hits the fan. Our younger generation will be dealing with this at great cost of blood and treasure. Bet on it.
Tenth, You will love this quote: "What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence. If XXXXXX were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve this country's interest."As an addict of history your post and Hardnox's response rang through to the last time that the world was collapsing around our ears. Compare 1945 with United States Forces victorious around the planet just as in 2000. By 1951 Communism was on the march everywhere as country after country fell under communist domination. Today it is Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood on the march. The quote was from a speech by Senator Joesph McCarthy in 1951 - the object of his wrath was Secretary of State Marshall. The entire speech is here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1951mccarthy-marshall.htmlIt's interesting to read that speech and substitute today's actors for those of 1951 and see how unerringly McCarthy's words ring true. Of course with what we know from Soviet records, the Venona decryptions, and an examination of history - McCarthy was right about nearly everything. Marshall wasn't a communist of course, but steered by a State Department riddled with communists, he was being fed horrible advice and he was a pawn in undermining freedom everywhere. McCarthy was the only victim of McCarthyism of course - these were also his words from the same speech: "The America that I know, and that other Senators know, this vast and teeming and beautiful land, this hopeful society where the poor share the table of the rich as never before in history, where men of all colors, of all faiths, are brothers as never before in history, where great deeds have been done and great deeds are yet to do, that America deserves to be led not to humiliation or defeat, but to victory."Indeed. November 2012 is coming.
So you're saying a dictator picked by the citizens of that country is worse than a dictator picked by a foreign country?And how is a group advocating for their religious laws (in this case Shariah Law) different from the Christian Extremists in the United States trying to enforce their religious law here?(And remember our previous discussions on how the "Christians" would dictate how YOU can live and/or punish you and your family for breaking their laws.)And I guess I don't have to warn you to be very wary of anyone praising Senator Joesph McCarthy.
Joseph McCarthy???????Seriously, pal, Joseph McCarthyHow's life in LalaLand?Now to a more serious response. Tenth, if you want to compare the GW Bush foreign policy to that of Obama I'd be happy to engage you.Let's start with using our Armed Services for specious adventures in far-away places as a starting point.Please don't tell me that you thought that the preemptive attack on Iraq was anything but specious. Why was it again that Bush sent the troops over there?Secondly, what was that May 1, 2003 "Mission Accomplished" all about other than chest-thumping?Third, what was the strategy that he and his advisers formulated after the 'victory?'Fourth, how much did it 'cost' in blood and treasure to take down the two-bit dictator, Hussein compared to what it cost in blood and treasure to take down the two-bit dictator, Ghidaffi?
Mud,Again you are blinded by your own hate. Bush had over seventy reasons to take down Iraq. He offered those reasons to Congress AND the UN. Congress and the UN gave approval to take down Saddam. Bush gave Saddam a chance to go willingly. He refused. We took him down, and said "Mission Accomplished". Then we had a new mission - turn the chaos of Iraq into a democracy, an undoable idea, in my uneducated, uninformed opinion. But Bush asked for and received approval to go into Iraq.
NW Ohio, You liberals always want to have it both ways. Are women better off under Sharia or the Christian inspired laws of the United States? How about homosexuals? They better off in Iran or California? You want to attend an execution in Riyadh or San Antonio? I suspect that any Christian in your world is an "extremest" - but how about looking at it from our point of view dealing with homosexual and liberal extremists. We have never had a "discussion" about Christianity. "Discussion" typically implies an exchange of ideas in an atmosphere of mutual respect. You probably went to public school - as did I. Everything that you think you know about Senator Joseph McCarthy is false. I could recommend a couple of good books.
Mud, Everything that you think you know about Joseph McCarthy is false, of course that could be said of much of what you think you know. How about a serious discussion on Joe McCarthy? What exactly did he do that you find so objectionable? He's become a liberal boogie man and insult - but most of you liberals (democrats, socialists, progressives, whatever) don't know why.
Tenth- thank you for your honest answer. We can disagree without becoming disagreeable.I have one more question for you and any of the other Veterans who read your blog and/or comment on it.How do you feel about Iraq Veteran, Marine Scott Olsen, who was hit by a tear gas canister in Oakland yesterday? He has a concussion and possibly bleeding on the brain.Further, did you read that while others were helping to carry Olsen away and to the hospital, police shot a flash grenade at those helping Olsen?I'm guessing that this incident puts Veterans like you in a odd spot. I know that most conservatives dislike the Occupy Movement, but are these people justifiable targets for police excesses? And since Olsen served two tours in Iraq, how do you fell about a fellow Marine [wearing his Marine fatigues] being a target of such police action?Where does your heart lie, Tenth?
Boys and Girls watching at home, This is an example of Liberals (Democrats, Progressives, Socialists, whatever) and their “dueling” style. Note the baseless and absurd charges and hysterical ranting followed by retreat. This is because all of the facts are stacked against them. Watching liberals argue is not like watching a tennis match where a volley goes back and forth. They throw the ball into your court, you hit it back, but they’re gone. Also note the change in subject – that’s also liberal stock-in-trade. Former Marine Scott Olsen presents an interesting contrast for liberals. Olsen along with other Occupy Oakland miscreants are flagrantly violating the rights of the people who live and work in Oakland. Olsen was wounded while involved in illegal activity. It is unfortunate, but if Olsen had not been engaged in illegal activity, the police would not have been required to apply force. Liberals typically forget that police don’t run around beating up innocent people – there are too many bad guys and girls out there and they are to busy to waste their time. If you rob a liquor store, burglarize a home, or yes remain in a location that is no longer available to you – you have placed yourself in imminent danger. The people who are egging protestors on understand that, if you don’t and demonstrate anyway – you are a fool. Believe me – George Soros and his cronies are ecstatic that Olsen was wounded. However, they would have been happier had the police fired a volley of buckshot into the crowd. Note to all Occupy knuckleheads – non-lethal remedies available to the police nationwide can be quite dangerous. Police have resorted to these methods so that they have more options available than service weapons – but if you choose to break the law, you place yourself in jeopardy. Tear gas, tasers, pepper spray, wooden baton rounds, bean bag rounds, and sting-ball grenades can create very painful effects – that is their purpose. You shouldn’t be surprised when it happens and you shouldn’t be surprised when we aren’t sympathetic. Non-lethal is not synonymous with “safe.” Under the right circumstances they can be deadly. You liberals have your poster boy now – be happy. You had no use for the Scott Olsens of the world when he was in uniform and in Iraq – but you embrace him now that he is injured in your illegal activity. I regret that Olsen selected the path he did. It was foolish on his part.
I didn't ask Skippy for his opinion.I addressed this to Tenth, so butt out, Skippy!
Hey Skippy mud,"I have one more question for you and any of the other Veterans who read your blog and/or comment on it."I guess you don't even read your own posts. What a douche.First of all, wearing a uniform (you can buy one at any military supply store) does not give him or anyone licence to threaten police. The police were either threatened or were ordered to disperse the crowd. I doubt that it was the call of one officer.If it is proven that indeed it was one officer that acted without authorization then let the justice system deal with it.The Marine in question may have just been a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.We all have the right to peaceably assemble and vent our grievances. Government should not stand in the way. It is our right to do so.That said, our first amendment does not give anyone the right to trash our public places, do drugs, sell drugs, rape women, defecate, fornicate, or prevent persons from practicing legal activities in the area of protest.mud, how do you feel about the druggies, the thefts, and the rapes? So far there are about 2700 arrests from these protests nationwide. What's your take on that?
I didn't ask you either, pal so butt out!
Mud,Both Hardnox and CS are veterans. I will affirm that. You asked me OR the other veterans who comment here.My opinion doesn't differ much from CS and Hardnox. I will say this: I think all cops violate the Constitution when they enforce un-Constitutional laws. And they do, all the time.In this particular instance, this Marine was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that the CS canister hit him instead of the typical whacko was pure accident. Would you be upset if it had hit Cindy Sheehan? Where was Cindy, anyway? Have you libs given up on her??
OK, without saying if I'm with or against the occupiers, doesn't the similarity to what happened in Oakland to what is happening in Syria scare you just a little bit?(A little fun fact about me: I've been protested against in person during a military exercise and I've been chased by police during a civil unrest. I was a lot more scared being chased by the police. Thank God I was fast because the police beat the shit out of the protesters they caught.)
Hey Mud_Sling, You don't get to pick who speaks here - only on your Marxist on-line echo chamber. If you don't like to confront the truth - stay in that self-licking ice cream cone of yours. We won't miss you - you have nothing to bring to the game.
NW Ohio - You mean to tell me that you draw a moral equivalency between the military of a country attacking unarmed protestors and a police force trying to remove law breakers with non-lethal weapons? A Marine Rifle Platoon could clear the Occupy Oakland crowd in a heartbeat - but "clear" in Marine means everyone is dead but friendlies - that's not what "clear" means to the Oakland police department. The people, government, and police force of Oakland have shown an exceptional amount of tolerance toward these lawbreakers who are violating the laws of our land. It's about time we bring this whole thing to an end all across the Nation. While we are comparing things. Please contrast the Occupy Everywhere movement to a TEA movement demonstration where the people lawfully gather for an identified and authorized period of time and leave the place cleaner than they found it. Note the the only violence that ever occurred at a TEA movement event was perpetrated by SEIU union thugs. You could bring your twelve year old to a TEA movement rally and they would be enriched. From everything I've seen the Occupy movement is lewd, perverse, filthy, and disgusting. After our election next month I'm going to head up to Washington DC and take in the Occupy DC effort. I'm going to get a tetanus shot and booster for my Hepatitis first.
Thank you, Tenth, for your opinion.
"Hey Obama, Your foreign policy sucks"That's the sole reason I didn't vote for him in 2008. He had absolutely no foreign policy experience and it scared me. I had never heard of Palin, so I just assumed McCain had chosen her for a good reason.Now 3 years later, I think President Obama has learned by fire some foreign policy. I still disagree with some of his domestic policy; unfortunately he has acquired some of the same foreign policy ideals that his predecessors share
Mud_Sling, No snappy comment? No razor sharp come back? Don't worry - when you come back, I'll be here to balance your comments with the truth. Sucks to be you.
NW Ohio, There you go again - there is a glimmer of hope for you. Where Obama has been successful is where he kept (Gitmo) or reinforced (Predator drone strikes) the policies of the Bush administration. Where he went off the rails is in trying stuff on his own (Libya, Egypt) or failing to act (Iran).
CS writes, Don't worry - when you come back, I'll be here to balance your comments with the truth. Thanks for the early-morning belly laugh, CS. I can always count on you for idiotic hilarity [and you never fail me!]Got any more?Meanwhile, Tenth, if you and I can engage in a serious political discussion, I'm wondering which of the two tax plans, Cain's 9-9-9- or Perry's 20% flat tax would benefit you and your family better?Or, Tenth, if neither of these, which other GOP plan do you support for your specific economic situation?[Skippy- now go out and play while we adults have a nice conversation; be sure to take some toys with you]
Tenth, Good luck with Mud_Sling. If Liberals (Democrats, Socialists, Progressives, whatever) actually understood economics, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. I wrote about my encounter with a Mud_Sling like character. Pretty humorous and pathetic all at the same time. Personally, I'll take my direction on participation here from you - not some nasty, tired, broke-down Marxist.
TGP - I have a question about what you build. When you build chicken coups, are the coups able to broken down, shipped and then reassembled by an amateur? Please don't laugh, but would it be possible to include instructions on raising your own chickens?It seems there is a going trend for people to raise their own chickens (i.e. my next door neighbor - she's the one who packs heat), but most people don't have a clue where to get a chicken coup (or how to raise chickens). I just got back from visiting my cousin Thursday and they are in the process of enlarging their chicken coup.
Jeff,Some of my coops can be shipped and assembled. Shipping is outrageously expensive, however. I have thought about doing a blog page on my website about raising chickens, but I wonder where I'd find the time.Chickens are trendy. I think in the near future, people will be taking canning lessons and growing backyard veggies in larger and larger numbers.
Mud,My favorite tax plan is the Fair Tax. Out of the plans proposed by the candidates so far, I like Herman Cain's. Not because it would benefit my family better, but because of what I think it will do for the country. I am firmly of the opinion that everyone should pay taxes, regardless of income.I don't like the attitude of taxing the rich, and I am ashamed that any American would think the rich aren't paying their fair share. Anyone that believes that is fooling themselves. Unless everyone is paying something, their is no such thing as a fair share.
Tenth, I guarantee you that Mud_Sling is not going to understand that response.
Oh, darned, Skippy came in to use the potty just when Tenth and I were having a good discussion.Tenth- my question was specifically directed towards you and your family's best interest. Why wouldn't you care about your family FIRSTI'm betting that you are a very careful father and husband- careful to do all that you can to defend them and take care of them.There is no doubt in my mind about that.Yet, it seems from your response above, that you throw all of that caring out the window in order to hold onto some 'belief' that the tax system isn't 'fair' for all Americans. Why would you do such a thing to your family?I have been spending quite a lot of time attempting to figure out why political ideology trumps fiscal responsibility. Why would a lower-middle income worker like yourself [no denigration implied, but you have told us of your financial situation] rave about a Fair Tax when it might jeopardize your own financial situation?Do you know which group of people have been pushing for the Fair Tax Plan? Hint- it isn't the middle-income workers of America. It is the corporate world and the upper income folks.You and your family, Tenth, are not part of either of these two worlds. You aren't even inside the ballpark watching the 'game.'Sadly, you've been hoodwinked by propaganda into believing that the so-called Fair Tax is 'fair.' It's a cute name for a terribly unfair plan to suck more money from the middle-income workers and to relieve the burden on the rich and corporations.Check out the Wikipedia article on the Fair Tax and then tell me whether you think that you and your family will benefit from such a 'plan.' Is it the right kind of plan to help protect your family from economic troubles?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Mud,First, if you and CS can't get along, please don't speak to each other.Second, my family and I are in no other terms poor. For the past three years, or is it four now?, we have been living below the poverty level. I am not worried at all about what that is doing for my children's character. They will be better human beings for the hardships they endure now. CS has commented in the past about how rich the "poor' of America are. I have seen real poverty, in places like Cairo, Egypt. We do not have poor people like that in this country.Having said all that, I firmly believe it is the current tax system that is keeping me down right now. The uncertainty of that tax code, the frequency with which it changes, for good or bad, is keeping money in "mattresses", instead of out in the economy. Passing the fair tax would totally eliminate the fear that permeates the upper class' spending habits right now. Passing the fair tax, or even 9-9-9 would provide an instant and enduring boost to the economy. And as a hard working man, I know that the way for me to get more money is to have more money out there for the taking. I'll take a lot more. Considering that I am managing to survive in this economy assures me that I am right.
Did you read the article on Fair Tax that I gave you in my comment above?
Mud,I did not. I have been pretty busy lately, and skipped it cause I have read the book by Neil Boortz. Have you read it?
I have read the book by Neil Boortz. Have you read it?No, but that doesn't make me unacknowledged on the issue. I have read several neutral sources on the Fair Tax issue. Sadly, the version by Boortz is one-sided and, from my point of view, is mostly propaganda.You need to expand your horizons a bit so that you do not become entrapped in propaganda.I find that Wikipedia is fairly neutral on issues and they present both the pros and cons of political and economic arguments.Do you know, for example, that the Fair Tax charged a 23% tax on EVERY new purchase that you and your family make? Even on food. ]In Ohio, we pay no tax on food]. For us in Ohio, that means that a jar of peanut butter that may cost $3 would cost $3.90 at the check out. How's that for eating up our paychecks?Did you also know that, even though you and I would pay 23% on almost everything, those living off of dividends, stocks, and other financial gains would not be taxes at all? Zero.The top 1% of households, you may know, make all of their earnings off of financial gains on investments. Their tax rate would be zero, while yours would be 23%.How 'fair' is that?
Tenth, Mud will certainly expand all of our horizons - what a hoot. It is good training for next year's election battle. The best part of the "Fair Tax" is that it would produce a predictable environment. If when it was applied, it removed all other taxes (as is proposed) then prices on goods and services would drop by an estimated 22% - so it would be a wash if the Fair Tax enacted a 23% tax. Mud's "analysis" is done in a static world. The overlapping and compounding taxes that are currently in place make everything you buy or do more expensive now. At least in a "Fair Tax" environment you would see and decide based on some degree of transparency. Further, unlike the immoral payroll tax, pro-growth activities such as savings and investing are rewarded while spending is taxed. Right now the sixty-five cents that I decide to save or invest has already been taxed (I have to earn a whole dollar to invest $0.65) and the proceeds of my savings or investment is taxed again. The other thing that Mud's "analysis" doesn't account for is that even though that jar of peanut butter might be slightly more expensive (likely one percentage point - not 23%) your pay check would be larger (no more payroll tax or withholding) and business activity would soar generally enriching us all. Economics isn't hard really but you have to look at more than the retail price of peanut butter to get the whole picture.
CS has commented in the past about how rich the "poor' of America are.In other words that ought to be HAPPY that they can do their poor thing here in the land of the free and home of the brave?
It's worse than Jimmy Carter and that is saying a lot.
Mud,Why are you such a prick? Should they be thankful that they are poor in the richest country on the planet? Yes, and they would be, if they had ever been anywhere else.Should they be happy? That depends on the quality of their poorness. I'd rather be poor with my wife and kids, than rich without them. So am I "happy" because I'm poor? No, I'm happy in spite of it.
The "happy poor" is quite an interesting concept.By the way, Tenth, did you hear that Herman Cain said about you and the other poor of this nation?It's YOUR OWN FAULT.Yep. So, stop whining and get a better job.
Tenth, "Poor" is a relative term. I grew up on the West Coast and encountered "poor" in places like San Jose and in some farming communities in both California and Washington. As a young Marine driving on back roads to Camp Lejeune, NC (I-95 stopped at Rocky Mount in those days and you took country roads to get there) I was confronted by even greater poverty. However as you point out, poverty in the third world will really bring you up short. The difference is absolutely remarkable. Of course no one is recommending that we be satisfied that 80% of "poor" people have air conditioning and 75% have a car or truck (31% have two), but it does point out that the social safety net does work. About half of those households have an X-box. The other studies that Liberals (democrats, socialists, progressives, whatever) skim over is that most of the poor are new poor. In real numbers and as a percentage of their population whites, Blacks, Asians, whatever are moving up the ladder out of poverty - with one exception - they are being back filled by Hispanics who are new immigrants. They will and do of course move up. That analysis was done for the Washington Post by a self-described Liberal in 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401623.htmlWhat is magic about America is that people move up the ladder at a pretty steady pace - they do move down sometimes and even the "evil rich" also fall from the top from time-to-time. One study tracked people in the bottom 20% of income earners and 10 years later only 16% of them were still there - they had moved up the ladder. That only happens in freedom. It's risky sometimes, but it's better than having any government assign you a rung on the ladder to park on.
Mud,You silly old stupid bastard.How hard is it for you to understand that I don't have a job? I am self-employed, which means that when I don't have any work, I'm not unemployed, I am simply on "hiatus" from earning. Herman Cain really kills you, don't he?