Forum Thread

Lake Allatoona Topics

(Lake Allatoona Specific)

14 messages

Updated 1/11/2024 4:55:38 AM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,623 messages

Updated 5/13/2024 10:35:33 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Lake Allatoona Fishing

(Lake Allatoona Specific)

3 messages

Updated 1/18/2009 7:29:44 AM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	World safer with the Messiah??
Date:	5/25/2009 10:35:02 AM

Hey Messiah supporters, help me out here. The whole template during the campaign was that the world was a dangersous place because of the recklessness cowboy Bush and the Messiah was the answer to all our prayers. Our historic President was going to make the world love us once again. All our enemies would lay down their arms and embrace world peace and we could all coexist and make love, not war or whatever other dumb bumper sticker they can paste on their Prius.

Those of us who did not buy into that fantasy said that in fact the world would be a less safe place because our enemies would see Obama as weak, feckless and spineless and this was a historic opportunity to get what they really want. Well, who was right? See below, just from today.

North Korea tests nuke and missile and says they will test more.

Iran sends six warships to international waters and the wackjob wants to debate the teleprompter in chief at the UN.

Netanyahu defies Obama on settlements and half of Israelis support a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear program.

So much for that template. I can only imagine them pulling every plan off the shelf when they saw the President of the United States bowing to a Saudi dictator on his first of many Apologize fro America tours. Things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get really bad and we have the fooled middle that were sold a bill of goods but because of the their hatred of Bush could not see the truth.

I won't even touch how he is screwing up the economy, delaying the recovery and saddling our children with trillions of dollars in debt (suddenly our national debt is no longer an issue for liberals or the mainstream media....oops, redundant term) and tries to implement his socialist fantasies.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	World safer with the Messiah??
Date:	5/25/2009 9:10:07 PM

I don't think that Obama ever said we were less safe because of Bush. I do think that he said that the US has lost respect in the world because of Iraq and the Bush Administration's tendancy for unilateral action.

Have been following the North Korea story today. I'm not sure that they are "testing" the Obama Administration -- the world doesn't necessarily revolve around the US. However, it appears that North Korea is seeking world attention -- apparently they want to be recognized as a nuclear nation and are seeking some kind of concessions. I'm not an expert on Korea at all, but I seem to recall reading that they have done this sort of thing before when they want something. Last I heard the world is considering "sanctions with teeth", and military action is not beind considered. I think it is important that the US and the rest of the world not over-react.

You know, I'm not sure that we are safer either way. I've written extensively here before about what I consider the "illusion of safety" so I'm not going to repeat myself. I still believe in a strong national defense.

With regard to Gitmo, I have no idea what we should do with the prisoners. I don't think we need to rush into anything, but I don't think it is realistic to keep them there forever. One of the things I think the Gitmo situation illustrates is the need to think a plan through, and figure out what the end game will be before you take action. Too often, govenment gets in a hurry and doesn't take the time to fully develop a strategy. I've been in meetings before where the consensus was to go forward and figure out the end "later", on issues much less contentious than Gitmo. We were told that the war on terror was going to be a long war, and I wonder how much thought went into what success would look like? I don't know that they spent much time thinking about what to do with captured terrorists, other than to use them for intelligence purposes.
I also worry that the Obama Administration feels some sort of pressure to do "something" without thinking through the total strategy. One thing that should make you feel better is that Bob Gates is still SECDEF, transcending the political process in favor of continuity. He strikes me as a reasonable man.

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Pay attention guys.. Gitmo
Date:	5/26/2009 8:39:21 PM

is a now distraction.. whatever.. ship them to Saudia Arabia, super max or give them to Jack Bauer..

Now does this bother y'all?? North Korea and Iran with nukes and a means (or soon to be) to deliver them within a 1200 mile radius??

Shucks, guess I'm an alarmist because that will not reach Dadeville, but have friends in South Korea and, although not a Jew, understand the threat of survival of both Nations..

Hope and change is cool, but Executive leadeship is required now... Would suspect eeeLet's keep focus and not be distracted...

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Pay attention guys.. Gitmo
Date:	5/26/2009 10:51:40 PM

They've had nukes, but agree that their progress in delivery methods is not a good development. I'm not sure what the US can do about it, anymore than when Pakistan and India developed their nuclear capability. The treaty bans have had no teeth in the way of enforcement and it is doubtful that rogue nations care much about that.
Not sure what either country would gain by launching a strike other than inilition.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	World safer with the Messiah??
Date:	5/27/2009 10:50:36 AM

In a May 16, 2008 campaign speech Obama "denounced their foreign policies, saying they were based on “hypocrisy, fear-pedaling, and fear-mongering,” and had made America less safe." Took me less than five minutes to find this.

If you really want to maintain that Obama or his surrogates did not tell the American people that he was the agent of change in foreign policy and that we all we needed was him in the White House and his new policy of engagement and all would be well then you are being intellectually dishonest. That was a mainstay of his campaign and it is a total crock as we are seeing.

And if you want to take the position that North Korea and Iran aren't testing the new administration then you are being naive. And I know you are not naive. I know you really want Obama to be someone other than who he is because no one wants to believe they were misled but he isn't and you and millions of others were fed a bill of goods.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	No Argument
Date:	5/27/2009 4:31:16 PM

He did say he would be an agent of change in foreign policy. He said that the days of unilateral decisions would be done. And I think he is sticking to that, at least for the moment.

I think Iran is testing the US, but saw a broadcast last night that the President of Iran may not be re-elected and may be replaced with a more moderate candidate. More than anything it seems to me that Iran wants world acceptance, but he wants to be on a EQUAL footing with the major powers and I don't think anyone is willing to go there.

The problem with North Korea is that we don't get any good intel on them. The crazy man that is their President doesn't care about world opinion. Right now, the intel says that he is just saber rattling. I don't know if he is "testing" the new Administration or not, but he has done this before, in fact, I seem to recall that there was something while Bush was President too.

I was watching Morning Joe this morning and someone said that China has always been North Korea's "friend" in the region (actually, I think they are their only trading partner; but I don't know what NK exports). As we know, China holds our debt. If we proceed boldly with North Korea and China doesn't like it, China could call our debt... you see where this is going. The only good news is that China has nothing to gain by destablizing the region or else they would have attacked Taiwan long ago.

The nuclear stuff gives me the willies. I feel like I need to practice my "duck and cover" and start builing the bomb shelter.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	No Argument
Date:	5/27/2009 5:45:02 PM

You're age dating yourself with the duck and cover. :-)

We have lousy intelligence about what is going on inside NK and Kim jong mentally il is a very scary man. I do think he is likewise emboldened by the early actions of the Obama administration and some of the missteps. I think we both agree that Obama would take a different tact, the difference is I think he is going in the wrong direction.

Sometimes I think they sit around a table and ask themselves "What would Bush do?" and then just do the opposite. I don't disagree that there are areas of Bush foreign policy that can be legitimately debated and there are legitimate areas of principled disagreement. But not everything he did was wrong and as Reagan demonstrated you cannot conduct diplomacy from a position of weakness and achieve anything close to a reasonable outcome. We are headed down that sorry, ill-informed path and it will be costly.

I am sorry to say that this is just the beginning.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	How Would
Date:	5/27/2009 7:52:02 PM

you negotiate from a position of strength in this situation? What would that look like? And assuming that Kim Jong Il is as crazy as we think, would you want to take a chance by backing him into a corner?

I don't think we're wanting to get into a nuclear confrontation. I'd rather see Obama go slow here and build consensus and bring world pressure to bear.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	How Would
Date:	5/27/2009 9:39:21 PM

Its not a matter of anything other than a perception of how we will respond to their belligerent actions. Right now he sees Obama as weak and ineffectual and is making hay while the sun shines.

I heard an interview with John Bolten today that was very interesting. He is strongly opposed to a military solution because worst-case estimates involve 1 million casualties. I agree with him. But what he suggested that makes more sense to me is to coopt China into controlling NK. Right now they are propping up the current government primarily because they fear the millions of refugees fleeing into China. He was also critical of the Bush administration's policy toward to NK, which he believes is being continued under Obama.

What he suggested is that if we don't do something Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will be forced to go nuclear to defend themselves. That to me is more destabilizing. So his suggestion was to pressure China on the issue of North Korea instead of climate change, which seems to be the priority.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Why
Date:	5/28/2009 8:42:56 AM

do you think that NK is seeing Obama as "weak and ineffectual"? I would submit that if they are in fact "testing" the new administration, it's more likely to see what economic concessions they might be willing to make on the road to some kind of treaty. Getting further out there -- perhaps China has encouraged NK to pursue nuclear tests to bring pressure to bear on the US and other nations for economic concessions.

While I'm not in favor of nuclear proliferation, as a purely intellectual exercise, I would argue that if China, Taiwan and Japan developed a nuclear capability it would stabilize the region further -- mutually assured destruction worked between the US and the USSR all those years.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Why
Date:	5/28/2009 11:09:34 AM

Its based on the culture and what they perceive as a show of weakness. Look at how NK responds when they feel threatened. They bluster and thump their chest as a show of strength. They threaten to rain down fire on the Korean peninsula, etc. So when Obama went on his apology tour, when he bowed to the Saudi king, when he responds to threats with requests for negotiation, all these are seen as signs of weakness. They also watch what he does policy wise and his reduction of defense budgets, missile defense, etc. are all seen as signs that he is not serious. Say what you want about McCain, but there is little doubt in the minds of the NK, Chinese, Iranians or Islamofascists as to what his response would be which is why they supported Obama.

There is no one in that region that would benefit more with a stabilization of NK than China. They are just in a very difficult situation and have limited control over the nut jobs running that country. Besides, they understand the world response to the tests is more sanctions, not less.

No, no, no on nuclear proliferation. Hound, I can't believe you have thought through what you are saying. All those countries already have the protection of nuclear weapons from the U.S. We have treaties that obligate us to defend them as well as substantial troop presence in Japan and South Korea. It is implied. if not stated explicitly that this defense includes nuclear arms. The only reason they would go nuclear is if they came to believe they could no longer count on that defense. The problem with destabilization is in the interim as they pursue their own program. Do not think that Chink of NK will allow any of these countries to develop their own program without taking preemptive action. That is our greatest risk in the region outside NK totally losing their mind. Mutually assured destruction only works with reasonably sane leaders which is why NK is a problem and why Israel will likely not allow Iran to get nuclear capability.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Why
Date:	5/28/2009 4:21:52 PM

Yes, I'm well aware of the treaties with Japan and Taiwan, but if they suspect that they are in danger of a nuclear attack, I doubt they are going to want to be solely dependent on the US -- especially if they believe, as you seem to, that the US appears weak and ineffectual.

I haven't seen any real Defense cuts yet -- only a reallocation of funding from programs that are out of control and into programs that support US war plans. I can personally assure you that the AF does not need both the F-22 and the Joint Stike Fighter. A lot of Defense programs are way over budget and way out of schedule and I for one, was happy to see that Obama is cracking down. As long as US Defense contractors have a lions share of the defense market, I don't think anyone is perceiving the US can't defend itself.

I'll take the NK situation as other than saber rattling when I see the US diverting additional troops to South Korea.

BTW, NK leader is somewhat out of the norm for an Asian leader. That part of the world still rests on saving face and politeness. They would be the last countries to think it odd that the US president bowed to the Saudi King. Beating on their chests is considered bad form in Asia.

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Hound,
Date:	5/28/2009 10:57:29 PM

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Hound,
Date:	5/28/2009 11:15:38 PM

Sorry, did it again.. wrong button.. But let ask?? Has North Korea demonstrated a nuclear weapon capability?? Have they shown a 2500 mile ICBM capability?? Did they abrogate the 1957 UN peace accords re the Korean war?? Are they a threat to south Korea?? Is Kim Jung Il stable?? Don't know about you, I'm bothered just a little.. Could talk about Iran, similiar developing story, but it's bed time..
Might add, your suggestion regarding nuclearizing west asia also bothers me... the statement that MAD worked with USSR is a 'post hoc' fallacy, and we were facing rational actors for those 40 years.. not so now ...

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Folks
Date:	5/29/2009 12:51:53 AM

Alahusker hit a chord. If you have lived on the Korean Peninsula (I did for 2 1/2 years) you know that those folks just flat-@ss don't think the same way we do. Logic and reason to us does not translate to logic and reason to them. All bets are off when we are dealing with illogical and unreasonable (from our view) people.

You must remember that the NK leaders don't give a danm about the NK people. Otherwise they would have adopted the SK model years ago and would be prospering as SK is today.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Folks
Date:	5/29/2009 9:34:09 AM

Don't get too up agitated about Kim Jong Il. He is mentally ill but more to the point he is seriously physically ill and probably now has little to say about the current operation of the country. What is going on in NK is part of the power struggle over who will run this looney bin after Kim leaves the scene. At the moment it is the military making their proposal. Who knows, next week the slightly more sane faction (whatever that is) may get in the bidding. At this point I don't know what should be done and doubt anyone else including Obama does. I do know that whatever it is it can't be us alone and I doubt it should be whatever Dick Cheney might suggest.

Name:	lamont -	Reply
Subject:	I Doubt Your Doubt- NT
Date:	5/29/2009 9:38:13 AM

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Folks
Date:	5/29/2009 10:17:57 AM

Me thinks you know not what you speak. If you are an expert on the Korean psyche, please let me know your credentials. I lived with and among them for 30 months and have a fair insight. They are very much a leader-oriented people. As an example the Yoido Full Gospel Church on Yoi Do (Island), pastored by Dr Cho, was at the time the biggest church in the world. If you were to ask a Korean congregant where he or she went to church, they would not respond with Yoido Full Gospel Church, but "Dr. Cho's Church".

I love it when folks - not only you but others as well, speak as if the KNOW what is going on in other countries, and in particular, others' minds.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Obviously
Date:	5/29/2009 11:53:21 AM

I was only engaging in a little "ivory tower intellectualism" -- I certainly would not want to see anyone else develop a nuclear launch capability. And it does bother me. In fact, it scares the h*ll out of me.

I had friends that worked on Nuclear Arms Treaties, and although we put a lot of time and effort and good intentions into them, the truth is they have no teeth of enforcement.

I see today that North Korea is sneering at the UN Security Council while they test another missile. Not that I have a lot of faith in the UN either. I just don't know what you do, short of going in and bombing their nuclear production sites.

What is the solution?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Folks
Date:	5/29/2009 12:00:01 PM

I, for one, don't have a clue about what North Korea is thinking. Don't have any insight into their national psyche, but I seem to recall hearing before that they are very leader oriented. And I think that is part of the problem -- we don't have any good intelligence about what is going on and what the end game that they are seeking or even who is really running the country. Because as Hodja correctly points out, they think totally different than we do. And who knows, maybe this is their tipping point.

I guess we're taking it seriously, since I read this morning that the US and SK forces are now on "high" alert.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Folks
Date:	5/29/2009 1:29:15 PM

I hope you are right but I think it is naive to believe that we should relax and not worry about a nut job that is setting off nuclear weapons and firing missiles. This is akin to our ignoring al Quada for 8 years of the Clinton administration while they tried to get our attention. We have seen the price paid in lost lives on 911 and I think it is not only naive but reckless to not take this seriously.

And yet the current administration seems more intent on talking to China about global warming than these more pressing issues.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	But
Date:	5/29/2009 6:00:46 PM

You seem to believe that we should "do" something. What do you think we should do? You seem to be saying that Obama is not doing anything, but what should he be doing?

Obama is sending #1 and #2 at Defense and #2 at State to a special conference in the Region about the situation.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Folks
Date:	5/29/2009 9:12:22 PM

Perhaps I know not of what I speak and I have never been to either Korea. I do have a close friend who is S. Korean (Left to come to US for education, stayed in US for 30 years, returned to SK for 5 years in the late 90's before returning to US). My assessment is actually his and that of relatives and friends in SK. Both Koreas are "strong leader" societies but NK is much more that way since WWII. The people of the north are still mostly unaware of the condition of "Dear Leader" and continue to worship him. The opinion of many is that he has actually become merely a figurehead with the power struggle going on behind the scenes among those who are in line to step into his shoes. The rivals include military leadership, Kim family members, and politburo hot-shots. The possibility that Kim is not actually still in charge as the strong-man makes the current situation even more frightenimg.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I think you are missing
Date:	5/29/2009 9:42:14 PM

my point. I was trying to point out from the beginning of this post how naive and deceived many voters were to think that Obama, because he was going to be the anti-Bush, would make the world a safer place and we were all going to come together and sing kumbaya. I argued that in fact his promise of appeasement and non-conditional engagement of our enemies in Iran, NK, etc. would in fact be seen as a sign of weakness and only embolden them. My belief is coming true on both fronts (Iran and NK).

I have no idea what he should do now that he has triggered these events with his incompetence and neither does he. Frankly neither did Bush but the difference is that Kim Jong mentally il was concerned enough about how Bush might respond that he never took the chance in the way he is now, even when Bush was weakened by opposition to the Iraq war and a lame duck President. He simply could not take the chance about how we would respond but he (rightly in my view) understands that not only when Obama not penalize them for their belligerence, we will likely reward them.

Our options with NK are very limited because they have nukes and the capability to deploy them. This is the poster child for why the world should support military action against Iran to prevent them from developing similar capability. But they won't because they are feckless and incompetent like our current government.

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Maybe??
Date:	5/29/2009 10:48:19 PM

Just maybe we should get serious about systems that can intercept missiles aimed at us or our allies, including short/medium range and ICMBs?? Think the Patriot was deployed in the middle east in the last war (1st Gulf War) I fought in... and that system did pretty well.. Seems that I read that the the current administration was going to cut missile intercept programs that were not proven technology.. Feel less than comfortable on this direction, given North Korea/Iran's stated intentions.. feel free to correct me..

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	And El Posada
Date:	5/29/2009 10:59:11 PM

was great again tonight, getting to be a friday nite thing.. Could not talk the wife into the hot tub.. alas.. So it's a glass of wine, bed and a good book, before fishing at sunrise.. some one has to do it.. As the sign on the deck states, .. "If you are lucky enuff to live on Lake Martin, you are lucky enuff."

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Good Point
Date:	5/30/2009 9:18:50 AM

Sometimes, just settling back and feeling at peace with the world is a good thing. Had my coffee out on the porch this morning. The sun is shining and the birds are singing and the dogs are laying in the sun. (DH is busy potting another fishing light, but I set aside my concerns that he's getting that nasty potting material all over my table...LOL)

Had lunch at La Posada the other day. It was good. Love that house guacamole.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I understand your point
Date:	5/30/2009 9:30:45 AM

I just don't think I agree with it. While I believe in a strong defense, and I think that it puts you in a strong negotiating position, I don't think you can bully your way around the world.

The fact is, you don't like Obama, no matter what he does you will find something wrong with it. And that's your right. I'm willing to give his approach a chance. I don't think the US should have to shoulder the burden of NK alone, any more than we should have to shoulder the burden of Iran alone and the question of nuclear proliferation alone. We aren't cowboys and this isn't the wild west.

You know, the objective side of me says that we (Bush) was the one that started this whole "axis of evil" thing. If were another country and the superpower US publicly stated that I was part of an axis of evil, I might put an effort into deterring their ability to attack me. We played right into Iran's rhetoric with that.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I understand your point
Date:	5/30/2009 11:48:29 AM

You are right I don't like Obama, but it is because of what he says and does, not who he is. If Bush or Reagan acted like him I would oppose them as well. I didn't support McCain in the primaries because of what he said and did as a Senator. I voted for him in the general election because I knew Obama would not keep us safe and I am being proved right every day. You may not think its important but if the Korean peninsula erupts in war or Iran explodes a nuclear device in Israel but all the nonsense about universal health care and the other socialist crap he is trying to shove down our throats will be a sideshow if either of these happen. And they are much more likely to happen with Obama as President and you can never convince me or any other thinking person differently.

You might say I can't find anything right with Obama but neither can you admit there is one thing wrong with him. I oppose him because of what he says and does. If you have a conservative bone in your body (and I believe you do) you would oppose much of his domestic agenda but you are either too proud or afraid we will question the wisdom of your vote if you admit he is doing one thing wrong. That is why you have no credibility with me because you refuse to be intellectually honest. At least Archie is consistent, he is a socialist and loves everything that the Messiah is doing. You on the other hand claim to have conservative credentials and voted for Republicans but apparently have abandoned all your alleged principals to support this President. To me that is far worse than being a leftist nut job.....

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I have Repeatedly Said
Date:	5/30/2009 10:04:46 PM

that I don't agree with everything the Obama Administration does. I don't like the bailouts and I'm in favor of letting banks and businesses fail.

But, as far as his domestic agenda, I do believe that something has to be done about health care, SS and Medicare. And I'm waiting to see what he does... because to my knowledge, he hasn't put forth a plan on anything yet. I guess that is just how I am -- I want to see something concrete before I can say whether or not I support it.

I think I have said that on the surface, I don't support torture or maintaining GITMO. But the truth is, I don't think I have enough information to say who is right or wrong with that.

I'm waiting to see where Obama goes. He hasn't even been in office for 6 months. Yes, there have been some minor missteps, but show me a President who hasn't had some and who hasn't put their foot in their mouth.

The truth is that I am not as conservative as you are. I'm more of a moderate conservative who would like to see the GOP move more to the center. I'm of the same mind as Colin Powell.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Fair Enough
Date:	5/31/2009 10:20:03 AM

But as for Colin Powell, do you realize he has voted for more Democrats for President than Republicans? He is not the answer to the problems with the Republican party and the David Brooks of the world are wrong about what is wrong. Everyone wants to blame the Christian right but this is wrong and the last election demonstrated that fact.

McCain was not the even the third choice of the social conservatives and yet they still voted for him in the general election. It was the middle of the road folks that went for Obama because he pretended to be more conservative than he is and they chose to ignore his record (scanty on the legislative side but clear given his past and associations). As an example, he decried the "outrageous" deficits under Bush (and rightly so in my view) and yet he has turned around and quadrupled those deficits. And don't even bother to tell me it was for stimulus as that tact has been thoroughly discredited. His deficits are a results of excessive entitlement spending and bailing out failed state governments.

Quick Links
Lake Allatoona News
Lake Allatoona Photos
Lake Allatoona Videos