Battleground: Ohio; Update: Romney waffles
Yes on Issue 2 sign torn down by union-supporting thugs
Sorry, readers. I’ve been out of it the last couple of days. Trying to get back in the swing of things. While the sound and fury of the GOP 2012 race drones on, it’s the state-level battles that deserve the Tea Party’s united front, attention, energy, and activism right now.
On the November 8 general election ballot: Issue 2. As the Labor Union Report summarizes the measure:
Issue 2 on Ohio’s November 8 ballot poses a simple question to voters: Should SB5, Ohio’s government reform effort to get control back from union bosses, be allowed to go into effect?
Lined up against Ohio GOP Gov. John Kasich and fiscally responsible supporters of Issue 2:
All the D.C. unions.
The whole, deep-pocketed, brass-knuckled lot of them. Vigilant Ohio blogger Jason Hart maps the Astroturf campaign here.
Third Base Politics has been debunking the outright lies of the union opposition.
Project Veritas exposes how one corrupt, pro-union researcher at Rutgers University offered to kill an anti SB5 study in a pay-for-play scandal.
This is the website for Building a Better Ohio, the Yes on Issue 2 campaign. Fiscal reform activists have been targeted and intimidated just like they were in Wisconsin. But they are standing tall:
Issue 2 is about reasonable reforms that give our local governments the flexibility to manage their budgets and avoid the tax hikes, cutbacks, and layoffs that we’ve seen across Ohio for years.
But despite such a reasonable position, there are many across Ohio that are nervous about publicly stating their support for Issue 2. And we can’t blame them. We Are Ohio’s campaign has outspent ours by a ratio of 5-2, and they’ve made sure to tell Ohioans that Issue 2 supporters are the enemy.
To them, if you’re for Issue 2, you hate firefighters.
To them, if you’re for Issue 2, you despise educators.
To them, if you’re for Issue 2, you can’t stand cops.Of course, supporters of Issue 2 all know that’s not the case. In fact, it’s the opposite. Issue 2 supporters recognize the dire fiscal situation our state and our nation are in, and we know only reform can help save the system from collapsing upon itself. Because when it does, tighter budgets won’t be able to keep those same firefighters, teachers, and police from being laid off.
And we’ve already seen proof of its success in Wisconsin, where similar reforms were implemented.
The misinformation campaign from the other side is punctuated with a vitriol seen all too often in politics. Instead of a fair and balanced discussion of the facts, we instead observe the politics of personal destruction…
Sick of the Occupiers? Tired of President Rerun’s class-warfare demagoguery and Big Labor coddling?
GO HERE. Take action, lend your support, and raise your voices on behalf of the responsible adults in our country.
Freedomworks and Ohio Tea Party leaders team up on Get Out the Vote efforts here.
We can’t wait.
***
UGH: Romney: Fight The SB 5 Repeal! (That I Don’t Have A Position On….)
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
GOP Texas primary fight: Desperate Dewhurst slimes conservative challenger Ted Cruz
May 25, 2012 07:31 PM by Michelle Malkin
8 CommentsWho’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
28 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
56 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
116 Comments
JustOneMinute
» Barack, Youthful Leader!JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
Germany sunk US flagged ships in the Atlantic. German subs encroached our territory. Germany attempted an alliance with Mexico to attack us. All acts of war and therefore justifiable U.S. action was taken.
On October 25th, 2011 at 5:00 pm, LiveFreeOrDie_2011 said:
I am not saying they did because i think it is a Sock Puppet Ruse but -
Hows about a few weeks back when the Sock Puppet regime accused Iran of plotting to clip a Saudi national on US soil. Was that a act of war?
now my observation is, if it was or was not Irans actions, if true, are a attack on the US, if thats the case why then are we abandoning Iraq and leaving that country to Irans influence and eventual take over?
Outside of the Revolution, Tripoli, and the War of 1812, no.
This topic popped up today on the Limbaugh show, and when they said, CNN reporter and Washington Post or LA Times…you have to remember that we who know Romney never listen to the headline, and then we take the article with a grain of salt. There are templates out there that the media use, and they usually miss whatever the point of an event is.
Turns out Romney praised John Kasich long ago for his efforts, before a referendum question came up, not Kasichs. Just about the time he wrote his 57 points. I knew it sounded wrong, sounded off when Rush said it, but that is why they put articles out as Bait to rile things up. It is possible that some media think they are doing Romney a favor by publicizing things they think are liberal enough for themselves, but usually they get it wrong.
In July, Mitt Romney was all over NH promoting Cut Cap and Balance…and the media were silent, then they blamed him for not coming out for what the Republicans were trying to do in Washington.
Then there was the Rotary Economic Summit. The headlines read: Romney says he can work with Democrats. That is not what the economic summit in NH was about. The journalists, not willing to promote his ideas, or cover them at all, wait until it’s over and then say, Governor what about the gridlock in Washington dc? Not. What. the economic summit is about. It was HOURS, and interesting on the video I saw later. Who picks these headlines? Conservatives went crazy reading that headline, I think the media KNOWS what they are doing when the mis cover Mitt Romney
From what I have seen the Germans did not start sinking US flag ships until after we entered the war (the US declared war on Japan followed by the delcarations of war by Germany and Italy against the US). As for the alliance of Mexico and Germany to attack the United States, is the US not part of NATO and did they not have plans on paper to attack the Soviet Union?
Not sure what you mean RC — yes God is watching me!
I don’t believe for a second that Iran was that stupid but if they are in fact guilty as claimed, yes then by all means we should kick the crap out of them. Down the road when we’re in front of the UN looking for their approval to attack Iran that will be one of the justifications. So much for national sovereignty.
And if there had been a fully-equipped and trained U.S. Infantry Division that would have moved from a forward operating base in France into the Rhineland in 1936 none of those attacks would have occurred.
We went home in 1918. We did not make that mistake again in 1945.
Just why do you think the 5th US Corps is still in Europe? When it arrived in Europe is the answer to the question.
Knowledge comes from reading history on your tricycle.
The Unions are just committing the crimes the Tea Party and Americans won’t.
Germany was sinking our ships prior to our entering. NATO didn’t exist prior to WWII.
Interesting how these debates always go back in time. The issue to me is simple: Iran is a sovereign nation and as such can own any weapon system it so desires. I believe in a nation’s right to protect themselves as strongly as I believe in the 2nd Amendment.
But RP has a hands off approach and that is what you say is more in line with our Founding Father’s; yet you then acknowledge that our Founding Father’s fought Wars against soverign nations to include outside our broders.
The point is you have no idea any more than I what our Founding Father’s would think about the current state of warfare that has gone on. We can do our best to interpret what was meant by them, but no one knows for sure.
Please cite your source as I have been unable to find anything that shows that.
As they well should as it provides a precedent for what we have done. If we are not to look back at history then why did you bring up the Founding Father’s?
This is interesting. So you have no problem with a country having a weapon that can assure the destruction of another soverign nation and has repeatedly threatened to do just that, but earlier you had a problem with Germany and Mexico plotting to attack the US during WWII.
Does that include doing what is needed to prevent the deaths of thousands or millions of people by stopping wars before they ever start?
You might want to take a look at a chart of people killed in wars world wide from the 1600′s to present. The graph goes up steadily until 1945 when the graph plunges. You need to ask why.
This debate would be much better over a cigar and a few drinks. Tripoli declared war on the US and attacked US flagged ships. Great Britain blockaded our ports and captured our seamen. Both acts of war, both justifiable.
Careful my friend, your treading on the same ground the Left uses to claim our Constitution is a living and breathing document.
Agreed.
True and so was 9/11 an act of war.
Quite the contrary. I believe in the Constituiton as a solid unmoving rock of a foundation. It cannot be changed at a whim, but it is interpreted everyday as there is no way any person knows what our Founding Father’s thoughts were exactly. Sure there are clues in their writings and we use those to guide our decisions when we interpret what they wrote.
I was relying on my Catholic grade school eduction but here’s a source.
War was declared on the US. I’m not a pacifist.
NeoCon BS. Perhaps you should brush up on Just War Principles. Your doctrine is perpetual war to prevent war.
Thanks for the information and I stand corrected on that one.
And the terorists have declared war against the US many times over.
We don’t have the *right* to stop them, we have the power to stop them.
What right does a lion have to bring down a gazelle? None, it has the power to do so, and therefore it does so.
You have a totally twisted view of “rights”, which are in line with communist thinking; that rights come from the State.
Rights come from God. Nations are the creation of Man, they do not have souls, they do not have rights.
But, you do highlight why I can’t stand Ron Paul on foreign policy.
You equate Iran with the United States.
For the President of the United States, the U.S. HAS NO EQUAL. Particularly not a 7th century barbarian nation.
No other nation has any rights. If they want rights protected, they can write up a Constitution, give their people a republican form of government, and then apply for membership in the United States.
If the U.S. is going in and anally raping 6 month old Iranian babies, it is no “crime”. The U.S. gov’t answers only to the people of the United States.
If, however, an Iranian sneezes on an American, that’s high crime punishable by torture and death… relatively speaking. THIS is the attitude I want my President to have, and Ron Paul with his, “Islamic hellholes are equal to the United States which is guilty of not being nice” attitude is fatally flawed for the job.
I’d like for some of these Paul supporters to get stuck with a lawyer like Ron Paul. You know, the kind of lawyer that will see the other party’s side, rather than fight tooth-and-nail to win the case (and possibly keep your sorry rear end out of jail).
So we’re supposed to act like animals???
Don’t you EVER talk to me about “just war”. The U.S. gave up on the principle of “just war” when Sheridan (curse his eyes) gave Sherman the order to engage in “total war” against their proclaimed fellow Americans. And then applied the same principles of total war in the plains indians wars.
Just war is an invention of the medieval period when mercenary armies were employed. Total war tended to be destructive, which is kind of costly to mercenary armies. So they came up with a whole complex slew of “rules” of war to limit the harm war did to the native population. This was a philosophy rooted in and limited to medieval Europe. Neither Asia, nor any place else on the planet adopted the philosophy.
Which lasted until some barbarian figured out that if he were the only one employing total war, he had an advantage, especially has he cared more about power than loot.
I so love how Americans want to flagellate themselves over not serving tea and dumplings to foreign barbarian animals, but no atrocity was too great to commit against their “fellow Americans”.
Is a hunter acting like an animal when he shoots a deer?
You keep trying to apply the invented niceties from within the confines of a western civilization to the world at large. You want to reason with a lion to argue him into not eating you. You want to refrain from purchasing a rifle to shoot him with, because rifles are expensive and at the moment he’s not gnawing on your femur. You condemn declawing him to make him safe to be around, or killing him outright for your own safety, because of archaic “rules” that never apply to lions.
I’m not so much in favor of acting like animals as I am opposed to treating animals like civilized human beings.
I’m starting to think that I’m arguing with a brick. Men, who are the creation of God and have inalienable rights from God, have a right to unify and create what is sometimes called a nation. Nations have a universal right to sovereignty. I have the power to walk up to you and punch you in the mouth just as you say the US has the power to attack Iran. Neither is right. Why don’t you do some reading on national sovereignty and then get back to me.
Only in the sense of its right to exist and its national sovereignty. If and when it crosses the line and attacks us the gloves come off.
Where do you come up with this stuff, Paul Wolfowitz? Thomas Hobbs? I’ll stand with Aristotle, Augustine, the Founders, Burke, Belloch, Pat Buchanan and yes, Ron Paul.
No… collective rights don’t exist. Only individual rights. Just as there are no collective souls, there are no collective rights.
I used to support Buchanan, before I realized what an antisemitic nut he was.
I stand with the Founding Fathers, who did not equate foreigners with countrymen (see Article 2 section 1 of the Constitution).
No. Your bar is too high. The United States of America has declared that there will be an Israel. The runt in charge of Iran has vowed to destroy Israel. That is a direct challenge to our will. Nukes would give them the capability of carrying out their threat, and require us to have an even stronger and more expensive response than if we just conquered them now.
So we, the United States, having the power, tell Iran, “No nukes”. If Iran flips us the bird, we ram it up their collective arses.
Sucks when the shoe’s on the other foot, eh?
I’ll chalk that one up to typical secular public education.
Who says the shoe is on the other foot? You seem to have a problem with historical reality. I’m trying to give an example where the United States employed total war, where the world is a better place because the U.S. didn’t “respect the sovereignty” of another nation, and you’re playing “whose ox is getting gored”. You did manage to avoid answering the question. Do you propose re-instating the Confederacy as a nation, and restoring to its member republics their property, namely, slaves?
You wouldn’t be arguing on the internet if the Founding Fathers and their successors thought like you and Ron Paul. We’d still be huddled on the east coast of the continent, respecting the sovereignty of the various aboriginal tribes. No hospitals. No highways. No computers. No space program. Whereas Beck condemns Andrew Jackson along with Manifest Destiny, I’m thankful for both.
Yeah, and you’d be wrong like you are about everything else. Avoid the ad hominems, they reveal that you’re losing the argument.
I didn’t know Machiavelli was part of the typical secular education.
I read that three decades ago. Believe it or not it was in the ROTC curriculum.
Given you premise everyone deserves equal rights. If you believe that then I believe we should confer equal rights on your deranged neighbor who has repeatedly said in public he wants to butcher the neighbor down the street.
You assume when he is done he will stop and not come visit your family. But hey he, like Iran deserves the right to live in his home and own a gun.
The world did that with Hitler, Japan, and now with Iran. We did not with the Soviet Union. Could the WWII dead and count the Cold War dead.
The numbers do not lie. Your opinion is based on the last 10 years. Mine is based on 100 years.
I am now too old for war, but in the words of Captain Nathan Brittles, “Yes, we are too old for war. But old men should stop wars.”
No one stopped a war by being weak and hiding behind their borders. Forward deployment has worked. It has stopped wars, saved lives and we never had a repeat of Omaha Beach when V Corps came to Europe on June 6, 1944.
You can call me all the vile names you want champ, but frankly it’s people like you that get Americans killed. I have no time for people like you or Ron Paul. You have no understanding of history, nor the horrors of war.
Nobody is talking about “collective rights”.
Maybe this will help to shed some light:
“Every nation has of natural right, entirely and exclusively, all the jurisdiction which may be rightfully exercised in the territory it occupies. If it cedes any portion of that jurisdiction to judges appointed by another nation, the limits of their power must depend on the instrument of cession.” –Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1793.
“No court can have jurisdiction over a sovereign nation.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1791.
“Unmeddling with the affairs of other nations, we presume not to prescribe or censure their course, happy could we be permitted to pursue our own in peace, and to employ all our means in improving the condition of our citizens.” –Thomas Jefferson to Mme de Stael, 1807
“Nor is the occasion to be slighted… of declaring our protest against the atrocious violations of the rights of nations by the interference of any one in the internal affairs of another.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
“[We would be] guilty of great [error] in [our] conduct toward other nations [if we endeavored] to force liberty on [our] neighbors in [our] own form.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, Jun 24, 1793.
“Wretched, indeed, is the nation in whose affairs foreign powers are once permitted to intermeddle.” –Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Vaughan, 1787.
“We certainly cannot deny to other nations that principle whereon our government is founded, that every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792.
Sounds a lot like Ron Paul now doesn’t it? Was Jefferson a nut and a loon? Was he a socialist?
The world is littered with the bodies of the dead idealists and the people they got killed.
If Herman Cain will visit Ohio, an excellent teaching opportunity awaits.
Here in San Luis Obispo California, we had a similar balloted initiative. A “No” vote would retain binding arbitration among police and fire unions…who collectively make Los Angeles level wages. Thing is, were 250 miles north of LA, and only have 40,000 people here (which includes the kids at Cal Poly University). Our crime and fire demographics are so NOT Los Angeles, to be silly.
The measure was for fiscal responsibility, as our city is in the red (yet our city manager makes over 275K…go figure). While the unions cried crocodile tears over safety and crime prevention, the “Yes” people brought up the little known fact of current union wages in our small burg.
The measure was defeated with a 75% vote for “Yes”.
City-1…Unions-0
My premise is everyone has equal rights endowed by God.
Constitutional rights do not begin and end sanity or even lawlessness. Maybe you should try a better analogy.
I’d say my opinion is based on the last 2000 years whereas yours is clearly based on the last 10.
Nobody is saying anything about being weak and hiding behind borders except you and Hiraghm. You provide a clear illustration to the zero sum game thinking that says either we’re the world’s cop or isolationist.
I never called you a name and frankly, its the machinations of internationalist that use the patriotism of great men that have gotten Americans killed. We should have nuked Afghanistan right from the getgo. Then we’d see how fast any Islamic dog wanted to screw with us. Instead, we embark on a nation building exercise, building schools and roads and feeling so good about ourselves because Afghan girls can go to school and Afghan women can vote. We try to bring democracy to nations that have not earned it nor deserve it. And even after getting kicked in the stones on 911 what do we do, we go to the UN for approval and get support from the “international community”. F them. And then I hear Republicans providing the litany of UN cease fire resolutions Iraq broke as rational for war. F them too. If we go to war we go to war on our own terms because it is our sovereign right to defend against and retaliate against an enemy. PERIOD.
I’ve had enough for one day. It’s been fun.
Who the hell do you think you are staying on topic!
Interesting position. Given what you have written, convicted murderers would still retain the right to vote, still retain the right to bear arms, still retain the right to associate with known felons, etc. etc. etc.
A free society has the right and dare I say obligation to protect itself from those who violate God’s laws. To be free is to be responsible in your conduct. That is a central theme of the Founding Fathers.
The first obligation of any government is the protection of its citizens and their liberties. Iran does not have the right to have nuclear weaponry when they have repeatedly said they would use those weapons to intiate a first strike on Israel. Okay, be neutral, let them take out Israel.
Do you think in your idealistic world that Iran would say, “okay we are done.” Hint, did Hitler take Austria, the Sudentenland, and the Rhineland and stop? Did the Japanese take Manchuria and stop? Did Italy take Ethopia and stop? Did Stalin take the Baltic States and stop?
In 1995 forward deployed Fifth Corps moved into the Balkans and never took a casualty. In 1944 they came ashore on Omaha Beach and the First Division took 2,000 casualties in 20 minutes.
I love Ron Paul supporters who wrap themselves in the Founding Fathers and say, “they would never approve of this.” Really, then why was the three mile limit established as the international boundry two centuries ago?
Three miles was beyond the effective range of naval cannon. It was meant to protect the Republic. Missiles now fly 6,000 miles plus and can carry one device that can kill tens of millions.
Don’t try to get me or anyone with a minimal understanding of weaponry that the Founding Fathers would sit on the Continent and not actively take measures to prevent those missiles from ever flying.
The Constituion authorized a Navy; not a coastal defense force for a reason. Long before airplanes, missiles, satellites, drones, etc. the Founders understoond the principle of forward defense and the need to project power to safeguard the Republic and its access to resources.
That is how you protect the Republic. If you want to discuss what we get involved in and when, that is another discussion. But the defense strategy of this country has been learned at a very high cost. I am not disposed to having a group of ill-informed, ignorant, single dimensional, idealists throw away all that has been sacrificed.
If you have to retaliate you have already screwed up.
On October 25, 2011 at 05:14 pm, DesertSun said:
Just that when you are filling out the ballot, remember that God is watching you, and vote Ron Paul.
On October 25, 2011 at 06:33 pm, Hiraghm said:
Ronald Reagan highly recommended Ron Paul, that carries a lot of weight for me.
LiveFreeOrDie_2011 is engaging is some highly interesting revisionist history. Only 4 US ships were “attacked” prior to the Lend-Lease act of March 1941. One of these incidents was in fact a mine, which will explode regardless of the flag of the ship that hits it. There were 3 US Merchant Marine casualties in this time span (1939 to early 1941).
I would be willing to bet we’ve had higher incidents of accidentally attacking allies (let alone neutrals) during any given ~16 month period in any conflict since.
As for “nation’s rights” you have that completely backward. Our notions of God-given, inalienable individual rights (life, liberty, and property) were described by John Locke as being the foundation of society. He wrote about these rights to defend them from national interests. The state has always been the greatest threat to individual rights, and it’s only value is to the extent that it preserves and defends those rights.
The basic premise that America can be “neutral” is flawed. As long as we have the ability to project power we can and will be blamed for our every action (and inaction!). In liberal/libertarian reasoning the only “safe” America will be am America that has weakened to be non-exceptional.
Are union idiots so afraid that people might actually see the sign and use their good judgment to vote that they have to tear the sign down? Why are they so afraid if their way is the right way?
This is an incredibly interesting blog!! There are only a few posters on this one, but it has been a fascinating read. I don’t claim to have a lot of knowledge about WWII, etc. (My area of special interest is the American Revolution) so am not qualified to put in my two cent’s worth. I also don’t know who is right or wrong in these facts. I just know it has been fascinating and definitely food for thought!
This is one of the reasons I tune in to Michelle’s blog and comment on things!!
Thanks for a riviting discussion.
They know it’s not the right way. It’s their way.
It’s always the same with Democrat policies.
They have to hide the truth of it, or resort to cheap tricks to shove it down voters’ throats.
+1000
Hey Flyoverman, I understand your reticence about RP and non interference in foreign nations. I too go back and forth on whether a lot of these policies and strategies have helped or hurt the US in the long run. Even 70 years of history may not be long enough time to fully ascertain the true impact. I due however feel your being too dismissive of Ron Paul. He is also ex military, not many people are aware of that. Was he in country? I don’t really know but I found this about him. So he does have some military perpective.
” He then served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.”
Oh and the Zimmermann Telegram (alliance with Mexico) was WWI (1917) as were the Atlantic attacks on US shipping (like the “Housatonic”) you were probably thinking about.
Hey Rogue…I too love Ron Paul for many reasons. But I don’t think he is electable, and he is a “loose cannon” on a number of issues. Obama would make mincemeat out of him and the press would turn him into your typical crazy uncle who never should have left the attic. Count on it!! Ron Paul needs to stay in the Senate.
I am going to say something here that will probably get me yelled at! I am liking Newt more and more as time goes by. Romney and Perry are shooting themselves in the foot with their stupid bickering with each other. They are looking like Junior High schoolers. Romney is a plastic, phoney waffeler…can’t stand him! Perry is turning out to be not such a good candidate for obvious reasons. Newt, on the other hand, has stuck to the issues, gone after Obama instead of his fellow candidates, and he makes a ton of sense!!! I know he has baggage. But just imagine a debate with Obama. Seriously, he would wipe the floor with Odumbo!
How about this?
Cain/Gingrich
or
Gingrich/Cain
They seem to like each other and the idea has actually come up in one of the debates!!
Rogue, there is very little difference between Ron Paul’s foreign policy and George McGovern’s. Every year we celebrate the sacrifices made by our veterans. We wrap ourselves in the flag and beat our chests. Had we been agressive, strong, and resolute, most of those casualties would have been avoided.
Since WWI we could have avoided 90% of the casualties we took. Now throw in the casualties of other countries.
There are people of vision who have understood this and the media and we has written them off as kooks.
After he was relieved, Douglas McArthur retired and faded away. On the day the Korean War armistise was signed a lone reporter sought him out and asked him what he thought of the agreement.
McArthur’s only response was, “We have just signed Indochina’s death warrant.” He saw the price of weakness.
I am sure that today Ron Paul supporters are exuberent over our departure from Iraq. It is an out and out abandonment of that effort by Obama. All the loses and expense will be for nothing, because of it. 25 million freed people will again be plunged into the horror of a tyrannical regime brought to them by Iran.
All so one man can get re-elected. It makes me want to puke.
Well RC, I’d love to vote for Ron Paul but I just can’t do it. Love that he’s a strict constitutionalist but don’t agree with all he has to say. I find myself in quite the pickle!
***
HI FLYOVERMAN–excellent posts on power projection realities. And on what happens when these realities are ignored.
***
Could you get a job as a military adviser to Comrade Obama? I don’t think He understands the basics (of anything except community organizing) very well.
***
John Bibb
***
I understand, but he’s been the most consistent politician out there for a long time. He’s definitely no politically correct, switching stances whenever the weathervane moves. If you want smaller government and a closer application to the Constitution, then he’s the one. Whether you like his foreign policy stances or not. Frankly, I don’t think the current policies of the last twenty years or so are all that great. I’m ready to try something new.
I provided data from the Merchant Marine that shows 23 American flagged ships (owned or chartered) were attacked by Germany resulting in 243 American deaths prior to our entering WWII. You decide to parse the data and use pre lend lease figures to minimize German attacks on the US and you accuse me of revisionist history???
We have no disagreement here but none of what you said applies to the argument regarding national sovereignty. For some reason you guys obviously do not understand the concept which is quite sad being that you are self proclaimed conservatives. It’s no wonder so many have bought into the notion of NAFTA, WTO, UN, and other sovereignty sucking treaties, which by the way makes us weaker, not stronger. So much for your projection of power.
I submit that the entangling alliances that Washington warned us against, a globalist worldview, and foreign dependence for energy, goods, and capital, have made almost anything that happens in the world our “national interest” and therefore projection of American military power is required to protect the Empire. I further submit that America is indeed weaker as a result since 1. it is unsustainable economically, and 2. our enemies (Russians, Chinese, and most Muslim states) will continue to act in their best interests which is keep America stretched thin and constantly occupied putting out fires to protect the Empire. Where would Iran’s nuclear program be without the Chinese??
What has made America exceptional – our freedoms, self-governance, morality, and rule of law, or our Empire? What is so exceptional about America today as compared to 1950, 1900, or 1800?
No, its actually sad that after attacking a nation that did nothing to us and posed absolutely no threat to the U.S., and after thousands of great men gave life and limb, and after trillions of dollars of borrowed money spent, we walk away with NOTHING.
What really led us to war with Iraq in 1991? Why did Clinton push for war in ’98? Was 911 a convenient excuse to attack Iraq? A very interesting perspective on Iraq and the lead up to the 1st Gulf war from Jude Wanniski can be found in NeoConned. Jude Wanniski cannot be dismissed as a lib, quack, or isolationist. Flyover, rocketman, mondamay, et al – if you have any intellectual curiosity you’ll read his interview before you comment.
On over 150 separate occasions US planes enforcing the UN no fly zone were fired on by Iraqi AD systems.
Go explain your logic to the people who flew those planes. The last time I checked each incident was an act of war.
You use a journalist as the basis for your premise? WOW, was the driver of the ice cream truck unavailable for comment?
Evidence that the term “useful idiots” can apply to so-called conservatives. Love it how “conservatives” bash the UN on one hand and then give it legitimacy on the other when it supports their “argument”. True patriots and conservatives don’t recognize the UN.
I see you didn’t bother to read his interview.
Says the guy who apparently doesn’t know what Lend-Lease did, and put the Zimmermann telegram in the wrong World War (as one of Nazi Germany’s “acts of war”).
I ground my way through a good-size chunk of the interview, but I do not find this man’s claims to be credible, nor do I have any way to verify his claims. I just find it highly unbelievable that the MSM and the Democrats would have missed a golden opportunity to so thoroughly discredit Republicans on an issue where they are generally seen as far superior (foreign affairs), if there were any serious evidence of these claims.
One of his big informants, Scott Ritter, has been in trouble multiple times for having a thing for underage girls. This doesn’t mean he is lying about his observations about WMD, but it does speak to his overall integrity.
Then there are the motivations given: the real gains for the “lies” we’ve been told don’t make sense to me. The interview portrays Saddam like an honorable Midwestern any-town mayor, frustrated by a corrupt bureaucracy from helping his people, and the conspiracy against him, despite involving a myriad of interests only produces one informant: Scott Ritter. This sounds (and reads) more like a UFO case than a foreign policy critique.
Finally, even if every claim is true, I don’t see Ron Paul as the answer. If America is this screwed up, it will take another revolution to sort out all the scoundrels, not a Presidential election. If Ron Paul genuinely believed things were this messed up, he’d have to be insane to want to try and clean it up through (apparently) corrupt channels.
So he’s either a foreign policy conspiracy nutjob, or a guy who thinks he can clean up a corrupt government virtually single-handedly (a nutjob).
Ummmm….sorry to correct you, LiveFreeOrDie_2011, but this tidbit of information actually happened in World War ONE, not World War Two. The German Zimmerman Telegram happened and was intercepted by the British in 1917, during WWI…