(Clarks Hill - Strom Thurmond Lake Specific)
21 messages
Updated 2/9/2020 10:26:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,649 messages
Updated 6/5/2024 6:00:14 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,196 messages
Updated 6/5/2024 11:03:19 PM
(Clarks Hill - Strom Thurmond Lake Specific)
4 messages
Updated 3/7/2018 4:55:07 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Really Scary
|
|
Date:
|
9/23/2009 2:27:18 PM
|
Our President's total lack of understanding of balance of power is incredibly scary. Based on his UN speech he seems to be willing to throw Israel under he bus, disregarding the fact that a strong Israel is key to maintaining that balance of power in the Middle East. We may not like Israel or the way it conducts itself, but maintaining it as a power to be reckoned with is key to our national security. Without it the lunatics over there would run wild and further embolden them to carry out their quest to destroy us.
And don't give me this "well, he also told the Palestinians they have to stop pestering Israel" stuff. You don't win a fight by giving your opponent any quarter.
Nasreddin Hodja
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Really Scary
|
|
Date:
|
9/23/2009 3:52:55 PM
|
I agree ... I have said many times, you have to question the "real" motives of Obama. take many of his statements and actions individually and you may be able to explain them away, but when you look at them collectively and they keep coming, you really have to wonder if he lacks basic understanding, does not have good advisors, ignores his advisors .... or worse he does understand and is trying to take america down a path of destruction with nancy pelosi and harry ried being the pipers following along.
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Really Scary
|
|
Date:
|
9/23/2009 6:21:57 PM
|
You guys are going to just have to chill.........the apologists here will soon rationalize this stuff away ( after they get the talking points from the Huff Post, Daily Kos, Wash post, NY Times and the Nation) and tell us how extremist your views are. It's obvious that you can't think on the same plane as these learned people who still see the bright light coming from The One. Uhhh.........maybe something is going on........they have been a little subdued in their defense lately........could it be????......nah.........:-}
|
| Name: |
Mack
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Then, WHY>>
|
|
Date:
|
9/23/2009 8:10:43 PM
|
was this man elected??
I did not vote for him, but he managed a majority, and won. Why?
Serious question. Don't understand it. I thought Hillary was a shoo-in for the Dem's candidate. Wrong.
So, how does a Presidential Candidate such as Obama, with very little experience in government,Black, suspected Muslim, etc,, go on to capture the Democratic Party's backing, the vote of most Americans and the Presidency? How does that happen?
Serious question here, not a poke in anybody's eye.
|
| Name: |
4691
-
|
|
| Subject: |
MrHodja?
|
|
Date:
|
9/23/2009 9:21:32 PM
|
I understand how we are key to Israel's national security. Can you elaborate on how Israel is KEY to our national securtiy?
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Then, WHY>>
|
|
Date:
|
9/23/2009 10:07:17 PM
|
Mack ... I'll take a serious stab at answering your question ... and likewise I'm not trying to poke anybody's eye ...
I think Hillary lost the Democrat nomination for two major reasons ... (1) she's a woman, and some people just didn't want to vote for a woman, and (2) there are people who were tired of Bush/Clinton/Bush ... the Bushes and Clintons were President for a total of 20 years ... I think there were people who just didn't want another Bush or Clinton. Just my opinion .. I could certainly be wrong.
On the Republican side ... I think Romney had a good chance to be elected, but got edged out by McCain ... and I think McCain had a good chance until he named Palin as his VP. I think that choice sealed McCain's fate.
As for Obama, I agree he had little experience ... I disagree he is "suspected Muslim" and I discount the "not a natural born citizen" thing ... most people just didn't buy either of those criticisms ... he kind of won by default.
My two cents ...
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Really Scary
|
|
Date:
|
9/23/2009 11:38:17 PM
|
I didn't see the President's speech. But, we will never be able to thow Israel under the bus. First there is the Israeli lobby. And then there are the number of Jewish people in the US who feel strongly that the US has to continue to support Israel.
And for better or worse they are a strategic partner in the region. I'm not a huge fan of Israel, but they are a valuable source of intelligence in the region, and their military capability keeps a balance of power.
I don't consider myself an apologist for Obama or anyone else. I haven't been absent for any other reasons that DH's knee surgery and my own illness. I'm not enthralled with Obama; but I haven't turned against him either. I still think he was preferable to McCain.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
MrHodja?
|
|
Date:
|
9/23/2009 11:40:21 PM
|
It was in my original post. It is all about balance of power. Don't know if you are prior military, but one of the things we military folk learned was that there always needs to be a balance of power in the various areas of the world. If the Arabs and Iranians don't have a credible force to keep them in check in their area, it can be really bad for us. For instance, I believe the Israelis wiped out an earlier attempt by the Iranians to start a nuke program. They must be getting soft, though, to have allowed the present program to progress to the point it is now.
|
| Name: |
Yankee06
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Really Scary
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2009 4:39:45 PM
|
HOw is Israel key to our national security? --good question. Two main answers: 1) it is Not key to security; 2) it provides us key intelligence (both human and technical) on the mid-east that we can't seem to get on our own.
-My assessment has always been that Israel is not key to our national security but its continued existence is key to our national interests.
-Let me explain:
1) We birthed this nation after WWII. Thus much like a child we are "responsible" for its continued well being. True eventually, like a child, it should be responsible for its own well being. A parent wants that, but in time of troubles and real need, a good/responsible parent will never turn on her child. OK, the analogy might not be the best, but hopefully we get the idea.
2) Once birthed, we became allies and have been allies ever since. This alliance is not really a quid-pro-quo relationship (e.g., I'm key to your security: you're key to my security --although there is a q-p-q in that we do expect to receive Israeli intell on teh mid-east---which we don't always get; and they expect about $3 bllion foreign aid per year). But primarily this relationship is a shared interest/goals relationship. Israel is a democracy, and at the highest strategic levels it is important that the US maintain the democracies that exist and whereever possible promote teh emergence of more. It is part of teh political philosphy the "no man is free, until all men are free!"
3) being a national ally of Israel is detrimental to our national security. The support of Israel puts us at odds with all other countries in teh middle east, --even those like Egypt and Jordan which support us on some issues. If Israel did not exist, teh middle east nations would almost be solidly in teh US camp.
-Present: I believe Obama tinks all this strategic partner stuff relative teh middle east is old Cold War stuff, that needs to be dumped for a new mid-east policy for teh 21st century. In this mid-east policy, Israel and other nations are on a more equal footing realtive US interests. Obama is trying a very chancy policy in the mid-east, --he is trying to assure everyone on both sides that teh US will defend the existence of Israel, but at the same time will not support all of Israel's activities, e.g., Israeli housing in occupied areas. He sees no chance of moving forward in teh mid-east without this new approach. However, it is chancy for several reasons:
1) Israel questions his true commitmnet to Israel.
2) Mid-east nations question his commitment to Israel
3) US Jews are a domestic voting and money block that are hughly democratic; Obama chances alienating them
With Obama's new approach and people like Brzezinski saying the US should shoot down Isreali planes flying over Iraq to destroy Iranian nuke facilities, both isreal and its enemies might make serious misjudgements.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Really Scary
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2009 6:28:33 PM
|
I agree and I have to say that I don't think trying to appease everyone ever really works. He's hoping to appeal to moderate Muslims and "win their hearts and minds" that we are not at war with Islam while still reassuring the Israelis.
Israel also has an interesting relationship with China that has left the US uneasy to downright outraged. Suffice to say that Israel always acts in Israel's best interests and that isn't always what's good for the US.
Sometimes when I hear Obama speak on foreign affairs, I think he's taking the Rodney King approach "Why can't we all just get along?". And now we've got Bill Clinton doing his own foreign policy thing.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Then, WHY>>
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2009 6:43:18 PM
|
JaG: I have a different understanding about why Hillary lost the primary and I don't think it was her gender or her last name. Her team made a tactical error in not trying to win the early caucus's which gave Obama an early lead and momentum that she was not able to overcome in the larger primary states. The caucus's are a weird process where a candidate can win simply by being better organized and having lots of people at each event. I do agree that there was an element of Bush/Clinton fatigue but I think that was a distant second to a better strategy by the Obama campaign.
As for the Republican side I agree that Romney would have been a better candidate (disclaimer: I voted for him in the primary). I completely disagree that McCain lost because of Palin and I believe he had no hope of winning from the outset (which is why he was the government media selection). We only have to look back to Bush 41 to see what happens when a candidate loses their base. There is no way they can win. I agree that Palin turned off a goodly number of independents. But I maintain that she engaged the base and McCain's calculation was that she would solidify enough of the base while not turning off more independents. He was wrong about that but frankly anyone he chose to bring back the base would have been vilified by the press and the opposition. Had he picked a VP candidate that the independents approved of he would have lost the base and lost the election. McCain was a loser from the outset.
I agree that we forget all the Muslim and birth certificate baloney. There is enough with his statist view of the world to oppose and we don't need the other issues to vehemently oppose him and to hope he fails in implementing his agenda.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Georgia Lakes
»
Clarks Hill - Strom Thurmond Lake
Login
|
Home
