Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 51 To 60 Of 246 Comments
52 SECONDS OF VIDEO OF OBAMA'S PLAN FOR UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT
"Why scrap the system now after spending tens of billions of dollars and when we are close to success? Lunacy!"
Because the known solution for the Red team is to simply build more missiles, including multiple dummy warheads to saturate the system.
In the case of countries without the ability to deliver warheads in mass attacks, the solution is simply to ship them to the target area without going ballistic. The only realistic use for missile defence is to deter the retaliation of minor countries with a small nuclear arsenal in response to a first conventional strike from the power with the missile defense.
And protecting yourselves against that scenario is simply not worth the money spent in some people's judgement.
As for the rest of it the gross amount spent on military development is surely the ripest target for some small government conservatism, isn't it? We've seen how well the advanced weapons systems have been doing recently, cost for cost, haven't we.
"The question – as it is with his idea for an “independent” Defense Priorities Board – who decides what’s “wasteful” and what is “necessary?"
Politicians. that's what they are for.
"Then there’s his pie in the sky notion of a nuclear free world. Everyone wishes for that. Heck, I wish that the moon was made of Velveeta cheese but wishing will never make it so. And somehow, I just can’t picture him and Putin on the same page about much of anything. Obama, the charmer, the ideologue and Putin, the aggressive, canny, ruthless autocrat."
Yup, too difficult, let's not try.
"In effect, Obama wants to gut the military to make sure we never go to war again. He has said as much on the campaign trail. And if a time ever comes, God forbid, where we would find it necessary to project our power to the far flung corners of the earth in order to protect Americans or American interests under an Obama presidency, I fear the military would be forced to tell him that it wouldn’t be possible."
Again, yup, it wouldn't be anything to do with the massive drain on the military and public purse that the pointless Iraq war has been.
In summary a man says (and many agree with him) that military spending is at insane levels, the response "How will we defend ourselves from..."
From who exactly?
In your response, consider the fact that your existing weapons far outclass anything that anyone else in the world has.
You honestly can't think of better things to do wih that money?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 21.05.2008 @ 08:26
THE 'MAN ON A WHITE HORSE' SYNDROME
"end the war on terror? Yeah, if Obama is elected, then all the jolly jihadists who would not give a moment’s thought to sliting your throat or blowing up the building you work in if they got the chance, are all going to lay down their arms, change their attitudes about killing infidels (I assume you are also an infidel in their eyes), return to their home and adopt a new attitude. Why, because they know that he will talk them to death."
Yes, that is exactly what I said, if your emove the word "Motif" from what I wrote.
Of course, if you do include that, then it is clear that I am talking about approach rather than instant solutions.
"We had fools like you in 1938. Hitler was not a problem. Just sent someone to talk to him and he would give up trying to invade all of Europe."
Yes, Osama Bin Laden and the terrifying Iranian war machine are going to invade Europe any moment. With their vast armies, capable air forces, naval forces and striking new military theory.
(some people think that the advance guard are already there, building theirt mosques and biding their time, but I'll assume that you aren't that dim.)
Why is it always the 1930s for you guys?
Oh, and on CEO pay,
"Obama’s bill, the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, would restore a measure accountability and restraint to a system that has spun out of control in recent years. The bill would not limit executives’ compensation, but rather would ensure that companies disclose and justify the salary and benefit packages offered to executives by give shareholders a nonbinding vote on a company’s executive compensation plan."
Yes, you are right. He is going to get government to limit CEO pay. Provided the government is the majority shareholder in the company in question. Otherwise it comes down to the people who, theoretically, own the company. Damnable communist! Next he'll be instituting a national maximum wage of $12 an hour! and passing ownership of the means of production to the proleteriat!
"And while you are at it, perhaps you can tell me what his policy is on border control on our own borders? Or what he intends to do to prevent the invasion of illegal immigrants, some Muslim, into our nation?"
OK, you tell me what the Republican candidate's plan is, and we'll talk.
Ahh, Shamnesty.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 21.05.2008 @ 02:06
"What is Obama going to change? Will he have control over Congress, who holds the purse strings? Will he have control over corporations? While he may want to put caps on the salaries of CEOs, is that really his place as POTUS? Do you want the government to tell you how much you can earn?"
With any luck, at a bare minimum, he will ditch this absurd War on Terror motif, return some semblance of reality to foreign policy, may not rush eagerly and with little understanding into wars and revoke torture as offical policy.
I doubt tht he can or will do anything about CEO pay (how could he and why would he?), and he will have control over corporations in the sense that regualtions can be enforced. He will probably have a friendly Congress.
And no, unless I work for the government it cannot tell me how much I earn, and it won't, will it?
"You say the Obama supporters want something different. Yes, and that something is different to each and every person that listens to him. To one, it is job security. To another, it is access to cheap higher education. To another, it is a greater welfare check. That is the beauty of the Obama myth; he is all things while he is really nothing."
Or, of course, you could look at his policies. He does have some you know. Have you looked?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 20.05.2008 @ 11:50
"White Americans who support Obama will, as great black American writers have said, will feel absolved of the sin of slavery if Obama is elected. (read Shelby Steele) Black Americans who support Obama believe that all vestiges of discrimination will suddenly disappear and the playing field will finally be leveled in January, 2009. Both will be severly disappointed."
I hear this a lot. I just don't get it. I don't see where anyone is writing or even saying that Obama will restore the univeral balance, bring down choirs of angels, sort out the world or generally perform miracles. Neither he nor his supporters expect him to as far as I can see.
In fact, the only places I see these claims are in the mouths of his opponents.
What I see are a lot of people who are extremely fed up with the politics and general crappiness of things who see three options for leader, 1) Bush again, 2) Clinton again or 3) Something else. Since we know where Clinton goes and we know where Bush goes, they are plumping with some relish for something else, and who can blame them?
So maybe he turns out to be a miserable failure. The point is that Obama supporters are desperate to try somthing different and, to be honest, they weren't expecting the chance to be allowed to.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 20.05.2008 @ 08:09
FOR THE LAST TIME - BARACK OBAMA IS GOING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
"If you count Florida, Obama only has a 206,000 popular vote lead. With both Michigan and Florida starting to gritch about not being included in the Denver Doings, how is Howling Howie going to tell them to stay home and shut up? The Democrats have used the “every vote should count” mantra and now they have to pay for that."
This is the Florida that everyone agreed beforehand didn't count, and in which only Hilary campaigned. The one in which Obama wasn't even on the ballot. You think that those votes should count, yes?
You think you might be able to get something right, yes? Obama was on the ballot in Florida. And lost. He was not on the ballot in Michigan.
ed.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 3.05.2008 @ 17:13
"And drongo, I am not talking about America and our criminals although child murderers deserve the DEATH penalty, but I am talking about terrorists. "
Why not? What is the difference?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 13.04.2008 @ 14:46
"I am sorry, but I just don’t consider waterboarding, loud music, sleep deprovation and a few other things torture. "
Well then, why not allow them to be used on suspects by police in normal criminal investigations?
If it makes it easier, let's say that the person in question is suspected of murdering a child in a gruesome way and may do it again if he does not confess.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 11.04.2008 @ 13:13
"If so, then do you also think that every CodePinko that waterboards fellow CodePinkos in the public square during their protest marches should be found and prosecuted?"
Can we just put this one to bed please? Someone who enjoys being cut and beaten with whips is not being totured because they consent. Someone who does not consent to being beaten with whips and cut, but is having these things done to them while in custody is being tortured.
The same goes for the tired and ridiculous argument that military training involving waterboarding is not torture therefore waterboarding is not torture.
It is like sex really. With consent it is a sex, without it is rape. No-one would argue that since a husband having sex with his wife is sex, forcing someone to have sex with you is not rape.
Can we never hear this argument again please?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 10.04.2008 @ 16:17
OBAMA BELIEVES IRAQI GOVERNMENT BEHIND IRANIAN "SPECIAL GROUPS"
Yes, an excellent point, if only it weren't patently obvious by now that a standard practice for supporters of the war in Iraq is to use the term "Al-Quaeda" as many times as possible, no matter how misleading, irrelevant or outright contradictory to reality that description is.
This has happened consistently since the early days before the invasion of Iraq (often with belated corrections) and was responsible for a lot of people's misconceptions that Iraq had anything to do with 911.
In contrast, Obama made the classic "Ira[q/n]" error.
Or at least I assume that he did. Frankly, with the state of politics in Iraq, and the vagueness of who these "Special groups" are, or what exactly they are supposed to be doing, it would surprise me greatly if some people in the Iraqi government aren't supporting them. Certainly some of them have been actively involved with killing others, and as you well know, the ones most in cahoots with Tehran are the ones with the most power in the Iraqi government at the moment.
"Given their own paltry understanding of how the world works (hint: gathering in a circle with the thugs of the world and singing “Kumbya” is not a foreign policy), it is laughable that they would accuse a senator who has sat on the armed services committee for 17 years, visited more than 90 countries, met dozens of world leaders, and written on the subject for some of the most prestigious foreign policy publications around of having an inferior understanding of events compared to a former street organizer and lawyer for a slumlord."
Yes, this is all very well, but the obvious fact is that McCain supported and continues to support the invasion of Iraq, a policy that has been a monumental failure from day one to now. How do you weigh this up against his many foreign visits, etc? If my financial advisor lost me most of my savings, I wouldn't much care how long he has been practicing, I would be changing him for someone else. Maybe that's just me.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 9.04.2008 @ 13:42
CAN WE JUST WALK AWAY FROM IRAQ?
"There are enough credible reports that they stood up to some pretty vicious assaults by the Mehdis and may, in some instances, have been facing an enemy with superior arms including heavy weapons not in their arsenal."
It is now five years since the invasion. The Iraqi army still lacks heavy weapons, artillery, air power, tanks, just about everything except AKs. Without these there is no chance of operating without heavy backup from the US. Are we sending them tanks and training them in their use? Of course not. For one thing they might turn them on us (some allies, eh) for another if they actually became a fully operational military then we would be able to pack up and go home.
Even with your changes of mind, you still haven't come to the fundamental realisation that there never was a plan for withdrawl because leaving huge permanent bases in Iraq always *was* the plan. No-one in the current administration is looking for a way out of Iraq, win or lose.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 1.04.2008 @ 01:40
