The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on October 14, 2009, 09:55:43 PM
-
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33981
Natural-Born Losers
by Ann Coulter
10/14/2009
The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point.
What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a "war of necessity" while the war in Iraq was a "war of choice." (Oh, and as long as you're back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay "school safety" czar.)
The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 -- or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over "regime change" in Iran in 1979. Both countries -- and others -- gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.
As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. military swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.
By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot.
It's always something with the Muslims. You either have mostly sane people governed by a crazy dictator -- Iraq, Iran and Syria (also California and Michigan) -- or a crazy people governed by relatively sane leaders -- Pakistan and Afghanistan, post-U.S. invasion (also Vermont and Minnesota). There are also insane people ruled by insane leaders (but enough about the House Democratic Caucus). Sane people with sane rulers has not been fully tried yet.
Not only could regime change in Iraq work, but Iraq's countryside was susceptible to America's overwhelming air power. Also, Iraq has fabulous natural resources. Once the U.S. got control of Iraq's oil fields, the Shia, Sunni and Kurds could decide to either prosper together or starve together. (And it's not just oil: They're basically sitting on top of most of the world's proven reserves of cab drivers.)
By contrast, there aren't a lot of sticks that can be used in a wasteland like Afghanistan, where the people live in caves and scratch out a living in the dirt. The only "carrot" we might be able to offer them would be actual carrots.
But Democrats couldn't care less about military strategy -- at least any "strategy" that doesn't involve allowing soldiers to date one another. To the extent you can get liberals to focus on national security at all, you will find they are rooting against their own country.
Liberals sneered at Bush's description of Iraq as the "central front of the war on terror" and a step toward the "democratization of the Middle East" -- as Mark Danner did in the Sept. 11, 2005, New York Times -- because sneering was all they could do. By design, Iraq was the central front in the war on terrorism.
Any fanatic who hated the Great Satan, owned an overnight bag and was not already working for The New York Times was lured across the border into Iraq ... to be met by the awesome force of the U.S. military. Bush chose the battlefield that made the best flytrap for Islamic crazies and also that was most amenable to regime change.
Now nearly all denizens of the Middle East want the U.S. to invade them, so they can live in democracy, too. As Thomas Friedman inadvertently admitted, Lebanese voters credit their recent free election, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah, to President Bush. (American liberals, naturally, gave the credit to Obama, who they also believe is responsible for the sun rising every morning.)
Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq -- and then they stopped because of Obama's indifference. Sadly for them, America's foreign policy will now be based on a calculus of political correctness, not national security.
During the campaign, Obama prattled on about Iraq being a "war of choice" and Afghanistan a "war of necessity" for no more thoughtful reason than a desire to win standing ovations from treasonous liberals.
But lo and behold, those very liberals who were champing at the bit to fight in Afghanistan are suddenly full of objections to the war there, too. As Frank Rich points out: "Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention."
Now they notice.
Afghanistan is a brutal battlefield, largely invulnerable to modern warfare -- something the British and Russians learned. But as our military under Bush showed the world in 21 days, scimitar-wielding savages are no match for the voluntary civilian troops of a free people.
Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.
The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals' and certainly not Bush's. It was Obama's meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity" during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq -- a good battleground for the U.S. -- to Afghanistan -- a lousy battlefront for the U.S.
And it was Obama's idea to treat war as if it's an ordinary drug bust, reading suspects their Miranda rights and taking care not to put civilians in harm's way.
A Democrat is president and, once again, America finds itself in an "unwinnable war." I know Democrats will never learn, but I wish the voters would.
-
My big thing is that Obama doesnt know what the hell to do and he is really acting like he wants someone else to make a decision for him. CRAP OR GET OFF THE POT!
It is times like these when I knew we would see his inexperience and lack of leadership show through. He doesnt know how to make a decision, and he doesnt know how to lead..... he has never done it. All he has done in his life was go to school and be a community organizer. Yes, he has a vision of how he wants to fundamentally change our "deeply flawed nation", but all he knows how to do is put people into position and give flowery speeches. Thats all he knows because that is all he has ever done.
He is like a head coach in the NFL who is fresh out of college and has never played or coached a game of football in his life. He put all the players into their assigned position.... he drafted a game plan for the first 15 plays of the game.... he gave a nice rah rah speech, but now he is deep into the first quarter and facing tough opposition from the team across the grid iron. Everyone on the coaching staff and the entire team turns to him to see what they should do...... to see what the plan is to get out of this tough situation....... and...... and.... well, coach? What do we do? ....... He's got nothing. He has no clue what to do and no clue about how to come to making the right decision. Sorry Barry, but you cant call a time out in this game. The rout is on, and the home team is gonna take a thumping.
>:(
-
We should have been committed to Afghanistan all along. Not Iraq. That is where we knew the terrorists and Obama Bin Laden was hiding after 9/11 so concentrate there and exterminate. Unfortunately, America got side tracked on that. Still haven't figured that one out but Halliburton and many other corporations made money hand over fist on Iraq. A damn shame in my opinion and alot of good lives lost in the process. Needless to say, I support all our troops and they have to do what their Commander in Chief orders them to do. Bush and Obama have made plenty of mistakes in their decisions tactically. We need to let the men and women of our military go balls out and let them do their job without interference from politicians who have no idea what war is but let us get involved in one, oh, excuse me two.
As for collateral damage? It is going to happen no matter what we do cause this is a guerrilla war. There are no defined lines and uniforms are not worn. Some that are worn are by insurgents to pass through guard posts. No matter what, 9/11 gave the United States enough collateral damage to throw up in any countries face. We were attacked that day. Not them. Civillians died. Several military were hit at the Pentagon. But most were civillians. Unfortunately some of their civillians will die. But it will never compare to what happened to us on 9/11. Unfortunately some of the politicians are already forgetting what happened to our fellow countrymen on 9/11 and losing focus. Shame on them too......
-
Sorry, was Osama Bin Laden. Not Obama. But he seems to be screwing us as bad as the Muslim piece of shit!!!
-
Sorry, was Osama Bin Laden. Not Obama. But he seems to be screwing us as bad as the Muslim piece of shit!!!
I thought it was a clever and well placed pun..... dont back peddle now.
-
You know, I got about four paragraphs through this before I remembered why I hate Anne Coulter. She, unlike Rush, doesn't remember she's an entertainer. She actually believes her own propaganda. I have had dinner with both. Coulter because we had her as a guest speaker at a school where I was one of her faculty escorts. Rush, because he and I like the same restaraunt in Palm Beach, Taboo (he frequents it, it is a very, very rare treat for me), and we got into an argument over politics at the bar which led to dinner, he paid, but left me with the tip. Sounds like a good deal, but he drinks very expensive wine and since he said he generally left thirty percent I got stuck for$75 when all I wanted was their off season special of three courses for $30. Oh well, it was worth it for the conversation. Thing is Rush, as much as I disagree with him, admits he's a showman. About 75% is real, the rest is to keep the phones ringing. Coulter, is just a bitter person. She's smart, but is so convinced she's the smartest person in the room that she doesn't listen. That is the difference between the two. On the air Rush is a self righteous blowhard. In real life, he listens, as opposed to just waiting for a chance to talk. Coulter, its the other way around, she pretends to be reasonable, but observes Eric's rule number one "I am always right". You might tell her the sky is blue, take her outside and she would still insist its orange and call you a traitorous, commie, goddless heathen for doubting her. I diasagree with both, but Rush, I like. I wouldn't piss on Coulter if she were on fire.
FQ13
-
1. Stay till we "win" (?)- In for a penny-in for a pound
2. Stay till they have a Stable Govt. - They will never have a stable gubmint
3. Lets wander cluelessly while we debate it. - the current administration has been wandering cluelessly for about 10 months now.
4. Taliban are out of power, Al Queda is decimated, enough throwing good $ after bad- they are regaining a foothold, in part, due to #'s 2 and 3
-
Way to make it about you, Quaker. ::)
-
Way to make it about you, Quaker. ::)
Not me, stick in the eye boy, her. I am saying that I don't belive a word that Coulter writes without two live witnesses and DNA evidence. Rush, I sort of trust. The only reason I brought him up was to keep you from calling me either a sexist or someone who would automatically disegard a conservative. Point is, Coulter's stock in trade is invective, ad hominem and general 'big lie theory'. I trust a number of conservatives, like Brooks and Will and the late lamented Safire. Coulter is not among them. It ain't about me Eric, its about the bitter weasel of a source. ::)
FQ13
-
Not me, stick in the eye boy, her. I am saying that I don't belive a word that Coulter writes without two live witnesses and DNA evidence. Rush, I sort of trust. The only reason I brought him up was to keep you from calling me either a sexist or someone who would automatically disegard a conservative. Point is, Coulter's stock in trade is invective, ad hominem and general 'big lie theory'. I trust a number of conservatives, like Brooks and Will and the late lamented Safire. Coulter is not among them. It ain't about me Eric, its about the bitter weasel of a source. ::)
FQ13
Poop!
*I blame myself..... Should have know better......Good grief
-
Poop!
*I blame myself..... Should have know better......Good grief
Nicely argued. ::) ::) ::)
FQ13
-
Nicely argued. ::) ::) ::)
FQ13
No, I am not going to drift this further away from a serious topic and make it about Coulter/Rush and who is a bigger "entertainer". Your puny attempt to deflect people from criticizing your Golden Boy by bitching about someone on the right aint gonna cut it around here.
Exit Question: Anybody else starting to think that Badgersmilk has been a better addition to the forum then this clown?
-
No, I am not going to drift this further away from a serious topic and make it about Coulter/Rush and who is a bigger "entertainer". Your puny attempt to deflect people from criticizing your Golden Boy by bitching about someone on the right aint gonna cut it around here.
Exit Question: Anybody else starting to think that Badgersmilk has been a better addition to the forum then this clown?
Eric
Other than using a lot of bandwidth with your open spaces, what have you got in your wallet? I am growing tired of the ad hominems. If you have a point, make it and prove it. Everyone here knows I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong (eg voting for Obama I was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. This isn't the first or last time I'll post it here.). All I have seen out of you lately is a lot of bluster,drive by attacks, and insults because I violated rule number 1 "Eric is always right". Sorry, not impressed. I'm not PO'd at you, just dissapointed. You usually make a better case.
FQ13 who isn't trying to pick a fight, just has limited tolerance for sniper fire
-
FQ, I appreciate you honesty as to how you voted. I voted for Obama myself. As for Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, they have made some good points that I agree with. No matter what, we make mistakes prior to knowing we are making a mistake. I trusted in the thoughts and views of some of these people. Does that make me them, NO!!!! But at one point they had my undivided attention. No matter what, we are all accountable. Problem is, you have to be man enough to recognize and acknowledge that you made a mistake. Well, keep in mind that God invented erasers cause we all make mistakes. That is life. It is not a stigmatization or the scarlet letter of our protected voting decision. Just stand your ground FQ.
We are not on here to win the popular vote but to expand our horizens. I am not here to win friends but give the best information I can give to relative experience. But no matter what, I have gained respect among peers that are pro-gun, such as myself, and push forward. I can take my knocks on the chin but also know that I can get up to fight another day. Screw politics in my opinion. But I do not give a darn if you are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. Cause one of these folks could teach you something that could lead you to bigger and better things. Keep an open mind and listen to things that may go against the grain. No one is exactly right nor are they perfect. They are just living in reality and trying to live life. This I appreciate more than anything and am thankful.
We are on here to discuss guns. Not politics. But it comes into play from time to time. Baited conversation is out there also. Just have to keep an open mind and not get caught up in the bullcrap. But if you get caught up in the bullcrap, stand your ground. And be ready to eat crow if you are in the wrong.
-
Poop!
*I blame myself..... Should have know better......Good grief
That's OK Eric, I was going to tell him to be careful or his new computer would off itself too, just for this thread.
-
Sorry, was Osama Bin Laden. Not Obama. But he seems to be screwing us as bad as the Muslim piece of shit!!!
Ok tell me again which Muslim piece of shit you are referring to? Osama, or Obama? You have got to be specific when referring to those two sheet-heads. Because they are both trying to destroy us!
-
OK FQ, I hate to point this out, ( My first intentional Lie on this forum ;D ). You posted " The only reason I brought him up was to keep you from calling me either a sexist " .
My question is how does hating Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin, but NOT Rush, prove that you're NOT sexist ?
For the people who are voting "stay till we win", what constitutes a "win" ? (your votes have just been relegated to #3 , Wander and debate, the same thing that gave us Vietnam.)
Ping, Did you READ what she said ? Did you understand the military operational situations she described ?
Iraq had terrain that was favorable to American operational methods, Iraq already HAD a stable Govt, it just needed new bureaucrats, Iraq already had an infrastructure, Iraq only has 3 ethnic groups which simplifies coalition building.
Afghanistan had none of these things.
Iraq presented a place where foreign jihadists would flock to the banner of "War against the Great Satan" and be killed in large numbers. Heavy commitment to Afghanistan gives them a place to infest like cockroachs, just like they did against the Soviets...And the British....And the Mongols...And Alexander the Great.
-
I fear that Afghanistan is an example of what many wanted to see. Many wanted leadership like we have today that is weak and wishy washy, or as the Bible states it "built on shifting sands" so they could have their way with us. If we don't reestablish our resolve to finish the job we will go the way of the USSR in this one, or just as bad the way of us in Vietnam.
-
In the current political climate, what we REALLY need is NOT for Afghanistan to become more like us, but for US to become more like them.
-
In the current political climate, what we REALLY need is NOT for Afghanistan to become more like us, but for US to become more like them.
That day is rapidly approaching, I'm afraid.
-
That day is rapidly approaching, I'm afraid.
I hope so. It is basically what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. A weak "Central" government smoothing relations between strong LOCAL governments composed of moral people acting in the best interests of all.