Sunday, October 19, 2008

An Answer to a Comment

My previous post generated a question from a liberal troll looking to get my goat. I have decided to break my normal rule about feeding trolls and answering his question. Even though I think anyone who will watch that video and ask what's wrong with that need their head examined.

Liberal Constructionist asked: "What's the part that you don't like ... and why? Just asking."

OK here is what I didn't like and why.....

1. "I am the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning."

Barack Obama is proud that he is the only major candidate who opposes fighting the war on terror.

2."I will end it."

The big O will end the war. Note he does not say he will win the war, he will simply just stop fighting it. We as a nation cannot afford a President or a dog catcher who will not fight to defend this country.

3. He will cut spending on unproven missile defense systems. How many unproven missile defense systems do we have in development?

Answer is ALL of them. Until tested in combat they are all unproven. The only way to prove a missile defense system is for someone to attack us. The big O just said he will not only stop fighting the war on terror but that he will cut spending on continued research we need to continue to expand the defense of this country against missile attacks.

4. "I will not weaponize space." Weaponizing Space? We do not even have a reliable space program that can get us out of low earth orbit and he is promising to not weaponize space. We don't even go into space anymore. However a flat refusal to do something that may become necessary at a later date is short sighted. If our enemies start weaponizing low earth orbit than we had better be ready to counter any obvious threat. If that means weaponizing space, or low earth orbit whatever it takes.

5. "I will slow our development of future combat systems" Bill Clinton and Jimmah Carter already tried that and it took years to recover from the damage they inflicted on our military. Our enemies and the the nations who build and sell weapons to our enemies are not going to slow down weapons development just because we do. If we do not keep up, or better yet push the boundary of weapons development in the world we are setting ourselves up for a world class, bloody butt kicking that could cost us thousands of military lives, or even 10s or 100s of thousands of civilan lives. Now maybe the big O is OK with that. But I'm not. If you are an active member of the military this presidental wanna-be just promised the equivalent of sending you into a gun fight armed with a knife.

6. "Will institute an independant blah blah blah..." All I heard is I will create a new government bureaucracy and task it to reduce spending on our military.

7. "I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons." YEAH! GO FOR IT! I LOVE IT! I think that is a wonderful wet dream there buddy. A world without nuclear weapons will be great. But how does the big O plan on putting the nuclear genii back in his bottle. Unilateral disarmament will only get us killed and if he seriously think the other nations of the world are going to willingly give up their nucs then he is beyond inexperienced, he is too inexperienced to be a dog catcher. OH, wait, I think I already accused him of that.

Someone needs to tell the Big O that Russia isn't the only other nation on the planet with nucs. Also let him know that none of the plans he mentioned will get rid of any of the nucs already out there. Besides we have seen how well global bans on making fissile material has been. Iran is still cranking away making theirs in spite of almost total global condemnation.

There that is what I didn't like and why.

This man is too inexperienced to be in charge, is too naive to be in charge and too stupid for any of us to be depending on to defend this country. Especially since he just spend the last 52 seconds tell us that he will not defend us. But worse than that he will consciously go out of his way to severely limit our current military's ability to continue to do it's job.

4 comments:

liberal constructionist said...

Thank you for clearing that up. I thought it was something like that. It's hard for me to tell if you pretending to be clueless or you're actually clueless.

To wit:

1. "Opposed the war" means the war in Iraq, not the war against al Qaeda. Obama has said many times that he intends to send more troops Afghanistan and go after Bin Laden in Pakistan. You should know that. Or do you get all your "news" from Fox?

2. We have already won the war based on our original rationale for invading Iraq. See above about pursuing al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

3. "Until tested in combat they are all unproven. The only way to prove a missile defense system is for someone to attack us." Sophistry.

4. "We don't even go into space anymore." Say what? We launch satellites all the time. And are you serious in thinking that this is a "flat refusal" even if a future threat dictates that we must respond with space weaponry. If that's what you think you're a fricking dolt. Clearly what Obama is saying that he will not weaponize space now.

5. You are apparently unaware that Future Combat Systems refers to a specific integrated development effort lead by Boeing and SAIC to modernize certain Army combat systems. The program didn't exist under Carter and wasn't even started until 1999. The Army has recommended that the development effort be slowed and the number of systems under development be reduced. Have you ever heard of the google?

6. bla bla bla

7. Obama has never said anything about unilateral disarmament. You made that up. And are you suggesting that eliminating nuclear weapons isn't a worthy goal?

Oh, by the way, did you notice that Colin Powell just endorsed Barack Obama. Are you going to blog about it? Here, I'll help you: Powell doesn't know anything about national security and hates America. And he's black. That's about your level of thinking.

Have a nice day.

David said...

Now I remember why I am not supposed to feed the trolls. But I just can't help it. I know I will regret it, but I'm going to do it again.

This started with a quick 52 second video of the big O telling us what he will do as President. I said I didn't like it. LC asked why not and I told him. Then he responded in typical liberal fashion, with nuance, obfuscation and insults.

1. Barack Obama didn't specifiy which war he would end. He just said this war. People like LC like to nuance the war into different theaters, or countries. I only see us fighting one war - the war on terror. And our presidential wannabe just said he would end it.

2. It is nice to see a liberal admit that we are winning in Iraq. But the war is far from won. As long as Islamic extremists are oppressing people and attacking innocents in the world the war on terror goes on.

3. LC can chose to call my agrument fallacious but that does not change the fact that our enemies are developing new offensive missiles which can be used to attack us or our allies and the Big O is promising to cut our development of counter measures of those threats.

4. Opps, LC can't counter that argument so he resorts to calling me a fricking dolt. Typical liberal debate technique...

5. Yes I was unaware that there may be a combat system call "Future Combat Systems" I only heard big O say that he will slow the development of future combat systems. In the context of this video it sounds like he is promising to delay the development of all future combat systems. Something both Carter and Clinton did, leaving our military unprepared for the changing face of combat in these trying times. But then again a veiled insult - of course I have heard of Google I have a blog on blogger don't I? I just didn't think I needed to look up every phrase that comes out of big O's mouth. Shouldn't I be able to take what a potential future president says at face value?

6. We agree - lots of blah blah blah.

7. Did you read my first sentence after his quote. I would love a world free of nuclear weapons. However unless you have a time machine in your pocket and are willing to use it to kill tens of thousands of scientists through out the last 80 years a world without nucs will never happen.

As for the unilateral disarmament big O says he will "not develop new nuclear weapons" and "will acheive deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal." What if Russia agrees to his plans how will he get Pakistan, India, China, France, England, etc to go along also?

and as to LCs final comment - why should I blog about Colin Powell's endorsement of the big O? Have I blogged about any one else's endorsement of of either candidate?

Oh, did you all notice who played the race card here? The guy (or gal) with the word liberal in their name. However (s)he played it in my name, pretending to know what I think about something I have never written about here.

So now that you have shown your true nature LC you may consider yourself specifically uninvited from commenting here again. If you want to spew your hatred and unjustifiably put words into others mouths start your own blog and do so there. You are no longer welcome to do so here.

Stan said...

LC,

I will rise to the bait as well.

1) I can see how Barack can say he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. While not stated by name, it is inferred and can be somewhat ambiguous.

2) As to stopping it, why stop it if we can win it long term in the next 10 years versus setting ourselves up for further problems with other nation/terrorist states in the area? Are terrorists only located in Afghanistan? Where will you stop pursuing them? What countries are you willing to invade to find OBL? Obama stated that he would invade Pakistan if needed, do you support an ill advised war on another front? How then can you justify your presidential hopeful's opposition to Iraq? A war initially started to stop future terrorist attacks.

3) Imbecility. I'll even go further, what systems is Barack opposed to? Current air to air missile systems, air to ground, anti-ICBM missile systems, etc? Most weapons systems do not get tested in their actual environment in wartime conditions. This requires a war with a country/force that requires that weapons system. We can test in controlled conditions, but that only gets us so far.

4) This one has two fun (fun is a conservative codeword for idiotic) aspects to it.

First, he says that "I will not weaponize space". If he does weaponize space at some point based on some observation will you call him a lier? If not, is it because you accept that he has the international/foreign policy experience of a college student who spent the summer in Rome on an architecture trip? Or is it because you recognize that Obama is unable to recognize a viable threat when it is printed in the papers (more about this below).

LC, if I understand you correctly (I had to be hypnotized and taken back to the 5th grade in order to do this) you argue that Obama will develop weapons for use in space after it becomes apparent that we need them? If this is true, what would you call China's satellite killing test in 2007? Is it by chance a new toy for the party chairman? They can knock out a satellite, if they knock enough of them down we have no global communications and limited navigation and limited weapons to use effectively. If Obama is unable to see a threat that is so blatantly displayed, what will it take for him to start devoting money and resources to space? I can only guess that he may take notice when his Direct TV feed is interrupted by a missing satellite. Otherwise I have doubts that Obama could pick out a mugger hiding at a bingo parlor.

5) Have you ever used "the google"? If so you would know it was a Pentagon report recommending a cut of approximately 0.009% spread over multiple years. Huge cuts there, why, with the few hundred million saved we could afford to add 0.003% to the housing/economy stimulus package.

On a side note I believe the term is actually Google, rather than "the google". Also, if the term "the google" where correct usage it would be as follows "The Google". In spite of this, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were only being juvenile in mocking our current president; and that you are not the full-blooded imbecile that your comments indicate.

6) We all agree to hope that Obama was only saying blah, blah, blah. Otherwise we have to believe that Obama is brilliant enough to believe that bureaucracy is a value added step in the production process. Though he was a community organizer which adds bureaucracy to the simple step of letting communities organize themselves. Hmm, here is my thinking face while I ponder that one (http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/resources/obama460may18.jpg).

7) I set a goal to have more aromatic instances of flatulence; some days are better than others, but I am getting there. Obama did not talk about unilateral reductions, he just stated that he is going to "not develop new nuclear weapons" and institute a "ban on producing fissionable materials". What this makes me wonder is, what is he going to do when countries violate his ban? As we can see in our own country, bans do wonders for solving problems. I am pretty sure they banned crime in most areas and now the police forces spend their time repairing streets and helping old ladies. Next we should ban poverty since nothing else seems to work.

President Bush had a goal for American citizens more responsible. How is your economic bailout package coming along? Goals are great things, but they are just that, goals. Something we right down on paper and work towards, not something that we can make others do.

8) Name one Democrat presidential nominee who is white and inexperienced that Powell has supported publicly. I'll give you time to look that up on "the google" (and yes, I am mocking you). Powell shares one obvious physical trait with Obama, I don't know if that is why he is supporting him, but it does bring questions about his motives.

Also, for idiot VP candidates, look no further than Mr. Joe (I can't count the number of letters in the word "jobs") Biden. He gave a rousing speech about the death of our country with Obama at the helm. Very in season for Halloween.

Tovin said...

I am amused by the bickering, started by someone who came to a blog that always has well reasoned, well thought out views.

So I only have one comment. I didn't realize that weaponizing space was an issue right this second.

Maybe that makes me the idiot, but I'm willing to accept that. I don't watch the debates - I've decided who I am going to vote for, and the media circus is a little annoying.

With the money these folks are spending on trying to get elected we could be doing a lot more worthwhile things!

Either way, David, just wanted to say thank you for the awesome blog. Been visiting for a long while now, and I appreciate the work and thought you put into it very much!

Good to know I'm not the only person in Ridgecrest who looks at our town and says WTF!

I do have a question though - How are you voting on N and the city council?!

B