MyFox
 

drk12's Blog

by drk12 from Corona Ca

Last Post 47 days, 9 hours Ago


Senator Barrack Obama yesterday made mention of a "tough, smart and principled national security strategy, one that recognizes that we have interests beyond Baghdad, in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin."

I don't get it, if Obama is so dead-set against the war in Iraq because we have no business there... why would he think we would have any business in these other regions? Maybe Obama is a warmonger after all, I don't know, but based on that comment it doesn't sound too good for London, Tokyo, Beijing, Berlin, Kandahar and Karachi. You never know he might just impose marshal law and disband congress. I know that's a little far fetched right, I think that's what they said about the charismatic Adolph Hitler, didn't Hitler campaign on change and reform, promises of greatness for the country, only to deliver death, destruction and attempted annihilation.

I'm not saying that Obama is a repeat of Hitler, but we would all be fools if we believe that promises made in a campaign push would come to any fruition. Let's face it, politicians promise the world to their constituents in order to be elected to office. Somehow it doesn't make sense to promise to bring home the troops only to redeploy them to Afghanistan, Tokyo, Berlin or anywhere else for that matter. The promise is to bring them home so they won't die in a unwanted needless war that we supposedly have no business being in. Let me ask this then... if we haven't caught up with Bin Laden in the years since 9/11 then that should mean that we have no business in Afghanistan then right? I mean, the CIA is more than capable of covertly going into Pakistan or any other country that he may be hiding in and assassinating him, so then it doesn't make sense based on Obama's philosophy of needless unwanted wars to keep any of our troops in the region.

Somebody set me straight if I am wrong on this, And please don't call me unpatriotic... the post is about Obama contradicting his policy on bringing home the troops, not if I agree with him, because I don't.

30 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 30
Page 1 of 2
1
Last
dasvics read my blog view my photos
Jul 17, 2008 | 7:53 AM

I have no idea what Obamas doing, and I asked the same thing, is he a warmonger?
I don't see the difference between him and McCain, they both desire occupancy in other countries, which is fine if it's to keep this country safe, but doesn't that contradict what Obama's been saying all along? Part of the reason he’s the Dem. nom. is his "I'll bring the troops home" line. Now that he's got what he wanted, NOW he changes his mind. Talk about deceiving the American public.

Happyg read my blog
Jul 17, 2008 | 11:36 AM

He triangulates on every position. But the thing that scares the hell out of me is that he thinks we can just enter Pakistan whenever we want. He's in way over his head. Definitely an empty suit.

Demboy08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 17, 2008 | 11:47 AM

We have business in every region of the world that is why its called a global war on terror not a regional war on terror. He never actually promised to bring all the troops home at once. What he meant by this comment and this is just a guess that the U.S. has other parts of the world to worry about than the middle east and we must not just concentrate on the middle east. We are a GLOBAL power with other threats like Russia and China in the eventual future.

dasvics read my blog view my photos
Jul 17, 2008 | 12:14 PM

“He never actually promised to bring all the troops home at once.”

Oh…, that’s what he meant. Silly me. Well in that case he or any other politician can use the same lame excuse to basically lie and do whatever the hell they want. You’re not really helping him Demoboy.

drk12 read my blog view my photos
Jul 17, 2008 | 12:43 PM

Demboy, that is just a play on words, I am looking at the whole phrase and putting it into context by how it reads. Do you really believe that Obama and his PR people would let him say anything without a clear and concise message? I'm just wondering if you read the phrase in simplicity because it says "tough, smart and principled national security strategy, one that recognizes that we have interests that lie beyond Baghdad", and he then lists the other nations. What have we to do with London, Berlin, Beijing, or Tokyo? These maybe our allies but they have their own capable military for their own national security.
I'm glad you admit it is a war on terror, though I have never seen you write in either respect, and if Obama is looking to the eventual future... then why don't we strike now, that is if it is eventual?
Anyway... the whole point is that there is a huge play on words from Obama and the similarity between the campaigning of Hitler and Obama, that is on promising change and people following or ignoring his potential because of his charismatic way of projecting his image and his speech. We can't trust or allow someone to lead because they promise us what we want to hear.

Happyg read my blog
Jul 17, 2008 | 4:08 PM

You need to grow a spine. BamBam counts on spineless followers like yourself. If you want our troops home, which is what you've been saying for quite awhile, then man-up and say so. Please don't insult us with this type of [...]. You appear to be smart enough to know that what you are telling us is nothing but BS.


Demboy says, as he dances:
He never actually promised to bring all the troops home at once.

voodoodog read my blog view my photos
Jul 17, 2008 | 4:42 PM

On January 30th, 2008, Obama proposed legislation in the Senate to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

craftyguy read my blog
Jul 17, 2008 | 4:44 PM

Obama knows little of politics and less about the military..yesterday he said he didn't care what the generals said that he was going to control the military.funny you should mention Hitler because thats just what he did at the end of the war in Europe and it ended up, in disaster for the German army ..it would be no different with Obama ..politicians are not soldiers and very few know the logistics of war ..Eisenhower knew it .Kennedy knew it ..and McCain knows it ..Obama is a complete bull artist and a dreamer ..its real easy to say your going to do this and that doing it is another story to do it ..this guys campaign is solely based on the country's dislike of Bush for not winning a war we were all for when it started and the fact he won won the democratic nomination because he was black and got 95% of their vote ..this guy is not real ..in a year the democrats should be running away in this election its actually a contest and depending on who you listen to a toss up and i think and its just my opinion by election time you will see Obama trailing when the truth is exposed about this liberal snake oil salesman

drk12 read my blog view my photos
Jul 17, 2008 | 6:27 PM

We can also throw in the Vietnam war, run by politicians and a ruined and morally defeated military because of it.

ArtistEd read my blog view my photos
Jul 17, 2008 | 9:00 PM

Here's Baracks version of the Brownshirts that the National Socialists Party put forth. The Union of Soviet Socialist's Republic also had their version. Notice how his crowd is clapping and cheering without even realizing what he is calling for. Bunch of lemmings. What will you do when they come knocking on your door?

craftyguy read my blog
Jul 17, 2008 | 9:40 PM

the war in Vietnam was totally winnable ..it was LBJ who was a great president except for this reason he caved in to the thinking of scumbag liberals like Jane Fonda who kept calling our fighting men baby killers the liberal media then over blew everything and made our soldiers to look like heartless killers..and when they werent killing babies or burning villages they were getting killed ..we caved in to the VC and stopped the bombing that was totally effective and was turning things our way..if we had kept it up and LBJ listened to his generals instead of a bunch of idiot liberal hippies the war would have been won or at the worst ended as it did in Korea and our soldiers would have come back to the respect they deserved just for serving win lose or draw instead of spit on by a ungrateful nation ..it was the most shameful time in American history and no apologies or monuments can ever say I'm sorry enough..and now we are reliving it again with the likes of coward liberals trying to control our military instead of leaving it up to the ones who have the real knowledge but at least this time we have a chance to change things ..thats the change we should be talking about ..liberals are wrong have always been wrong and will always be wrong..support our troops

This_Aint_Your_Land read my blog view my photos
Jul 18, 2008 | 9:49 AM

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

drerunner read my blog
Jul 19, 2008 | 6:57 AM

What if the generals say we cant leave Iraq for atlest 5 years? What would Obama say?

What if the generals also give Obama the troop build down in Iraq, but tells him the build down will have to be tranferred to Afghanistan near the Pakistan border?

By him answering these two questions ,he will clearly show his true intentions -without the rethoric- what he will do .

But i will tell you this , the crazy left (his biggest supporters and who got him this far) dont want any part of our military any where in the midle east , so I cant wait for his reponse. To our suprise he may have to admit (LOL) Bush and Mccain was right all along.......

gimini210 read my blog view my photos
Jul 19, 2008 | 7:58 PM

Think about this, NBC is one of his biggest supporters, they are run by GE, GE sells Iran materials to KILL our military, GE want us out of Iraq, why would they? Iran wants Iraq, GE is in bed with Iran it is better to give the people who you share a bed with what they want so you can continue making your millions. So NBC is a left liberal network run by GE who is in bed with Iran and supporting Obama who wants us out of Iraq. See any conections here?

drk12 read my blog view my photos
Jul 19, 2008 | 9:33 PM

This is exactly what my point is, and I'm glad it's not just the mushrooms talking to me (just kidding, that would make me a liberal democrat). It's always beating around the bush with politicians, it can never be just black or white (no pun intended) clear and concise.

DfDeportation read my blog view my photos
Jul 20, 2008 | 6:40 PM

Obama Urges Sending More U.S. Troops to Afghanistan (Update1)

By Jonathan D. Salant

July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said today that U.S. combat troops should be shifted to Afghanistan from Iraq.

``This has to be our central focus, the central front of our battle against terrorism,'' Obama said on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' program. ``One of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here.''

Obama, who opposed the war with Iraq, said that conflict distracted the U.S. from the task of capturing al-Qaeda leaders and rebuilding Afghanistan after the militant Islamic Taliban regime was ousted.

drk12 read my blog view my photos
Jul 20, 2008 | 7:07 PM

It seems to me that this rhetoric is his way of preparing the public for an eventual cross border invasion into Pakistan. Obama has voiced his contempt for Pakistan not aggressivly pursuing the Taliban inside their borders and the need for the U.S. to cross their border if need be without their permission to hunt down the Taliban.

craftyguy read my blog
Jul 20, 2008 | 9:41 PM

once again another liberal doesn't m mind spilling soldiers blood when he never had the guts to serve himself..looks like Clinton will get another term only the black version..excuse me half black...a maliberado

Demboy08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 20, 2008 | 11:00 PM

drk hasn't McCain and Bush been sword rattling against Iran for the past few years? I could easily say that it will lead to an invasion. I do not see why keeping integrity of Pakistan's borders are so important? They are unintentionally providing safe haven for Al Qaeda. Also prety much everyone wants to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan Bush McCain the joint chiefs so I am not sure where your going with this it is pretty silly.

drk12 read my blog view my photos
Jul 21, 2008 | 12:17 AM

Well demboy, if you want to technical the U S has been sword rattling with Iran since 1979. That would have made you how old? Oh wait you weren't even a thought in your parents mind yet.
You said your a scholar of history, which can be taken two different ways, either you are a learned person or you are a student in this subject. I tend to think it is the second considering your age and the fact that you haven't completed your first year at university. I you have ever wondered why you get the snide remarks that you do... it might be that you are young and you make comments yourself like the one above.
Now, as for keeping the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan secure... I never advocated it, however taking into account that the origination of the Taliban is said to have been adopted by Afghans from clerics in Pakistan, I don't see securing the border as a bad idea. Back to the post that you commented on... my point is that Obama is the one that made the comment that he "would not hesitate to send troops into Pakistan without the permission of the government of Pakistan in order to capture or eliminate terrorists who take refuge there." This was in response to the policy of the Pakistani goverment refusing to let foreign troops hunt for Al Qaeda inside their borders.
cont.

Page 1 of 2
1
Last


Write your comment below:




drk12

Undergrad UCLA/Scociology, Masters and Doctorate/USC Barbara J. and Roger W. Rossier School of Education, School Administrator

Member Since: 3/1/2008