Tag: Armed Response

What Happened To The Hysteria?

Do you remember back in the Spring and Summer when all the world was jumping through hoops because of Russia’s advance into Ukrainian territory?

The world went batcrap crazy….NATO was predicting that all other former Soviet states would be falling like dominoes……that hysteria lead to the formation of a NATO Rapid Response Force……do you recall any of this?

Probably not because it did not effect you in any way……but the plan was to create a Rapid Response Force to handle any flare ups in Eastern Europe……the US and NATO came up with an idea and a plan……but as usual that may be as far as it goes…….

Arguments over who’s going to pay for the creation of the “rapid reaction” force in Eastern Europe, something NATO agreed to create back in September, has left the alliance spinning its wheels on actually getting the force going.

It was supposed to be a 5,000 ground troop force with air and naval support positioned along the Baltic Sea as some sort of hedge against a Russian invasion, something no one serious expects anyhow.

Diplomats are now saying that the force, which was supposed to be put together quickly, will be lucky to be fully operational before 2016. Fewer than 100 of the 5,000 troops have been committed yet.

May I suggest that the term “rapid” be eliminated from the title.

Basically this was just a cover for NATO to get more cash and spend it on weapons and other implements of destruction.  In other words just a vague plan to boost the profits of your local friendly Military-Industrial Complex………and that is what our foreign policy is really all about…in case you were confused.

Ashton Carter: Yes Man Cometh

By now if you are a bit interested in the direction of the country you know Hagel is departing…..and after much debate on the news shows we have a frontrunner for replacement……..

(Newser) – President Obama has apparently chosen a new candidate for Pentagon chief—a relative unknown on the national stage who worked as former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s “alter ego” for about two years. That candidate is Ashton Carter, whose public profile was boosted by his role in planning the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. He would be Obama’s fourth secretary of defense if nominated—as senior GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe said today he would be—and confirmed. That would thrust Carter out of his comfort zone as a behind-the-scenes confidante and into the center of more defense and foreign policy problems, arguably, than Panetta faced in his 20 months as defense secretary. Carter’s name was among the first to surface after Chuck Hagel abruptly resigned last month.

That is largely because of Carter’s academic and government credentials and his reputation as one of the brightest minds in the national security establishment. During the administration of President Bill Clinton he was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy. Before that he was director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School. He is associated with a concept he helped champion in the 1990s called “preventative defense”—the notion that after the Cold War, the US could forestall major new security threats by forging and strengthening security partnerships with China, Russia, and others. Carter also says America needs to focus on the threat of cyberattacks.

This person is a hawk and that is just what Obama needs now…….someone who can appeal to Repubs and follow the lead of the prez….Hagel was not a ‘yes’ man…….this man is the quintessential YES man.

Look for an escalation of hostilities in the Middle East and possibly beyond.

America’s War-Weary Public | Consortiumnews

Keeping with the theme of the day….the topic is WAR.

The crisis in the Ukraine has returned all our wannabes back to the microphones and cameras….these mental midgets are out there thumping their chests like some sex crazed primate…..but all that macho talk these people are forgetting one simple truth…the American people are war weary…….

 

America’s War-Weary Public | Consortiumnews.

Syria And The Civilized World

Tonite the Prez will go before the American people and make a case for intervention in the affairs of Syria and somewhere in the prime time speech the words “civilized world” will make an appearance.  He will mention the gas attack by Assad on his own people and that the civilized world banned their use about a century ago, right after WW1.  He will face the nation and make his case for the use of American assets to send a message to Assad….and we will be watching and listening to whatever excuse he has for the intervention.

But, the civilized world?  Let me refresh your memory about the civilized world.

1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 – 1971

10, chemical, weapons, attacks, washington, doesnt, want, you, to, talk, about,

Via: AP

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military sprayed 20 million gallons of chemicals, including the very toxic Agent Orange, on the forests and farmlands of Vietnam and neighboring countries, deliberately destroying food supplies, shattering the jungle ecology, and ravaging the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses. In 2012, the Red Cross estimated that one million people in Vietnam have disabilities or health problems related to Agent Orange.

2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 – 2009

10, chemical, weapons, attacks, washington, doesnt, want, you, to, talk, about,

Via: AP

White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.

In 2009, multiple human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and International Red Cross reported that the Israeli government was attacking civilians in their own country with chemical weapons. An Amnesty International team claimed to find “indisputable evidence of the widespread use of white phosphorus” as a weapon in densely-populated civilian areas. The Israeli military denied the allegations at first, but eventually admitted they were true.

After the string of allegations by these NGOs, the Israeli military even hit a UN headquarters(!) in Gaza with a chemical attack. How do you think all this evidence compares to the case against Syria? Why didn’t Obama try to bomb Israel?

Source: policymic.com

These are just the couple that I thought of on the spot….we could always mention Saddam or deplete uranium, which we still do not have a definitive on the effects of its use and even a case against the A-bomb, but that would be for another day……my point is that the civilized world is just as guilty as Assad in the use of what we call wmds.

Please do not misunderstand….I am not defend Assad and the use of chemicals….I think any use of such assets is a crime…NO matter who use them.

The “civilized world” is not squeaky clean and I think that this is just an excuse to use some military assets….after all…”an unused weapon is a useless weapon”!

Listen for hints to the future…….I will!

Syria Scares Me!

And not for the reasons we are debating…..I am scared because for the first time in 50 years I am on the same side of an argument as my conserv friends……it scares me because many liberals are also opposed to our intervention in Syria……even conservs are battling among themselves on the necessity of the force by the US……

When President Obama addresses the nation on Tuesday about Syria, he’ll no doubt be hoping to sway members of Congress, too. Just how tricky that will be is made clear by the Washington Post, which reports that opposition to any such military strike has managed the rare feat of uniting liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans. The story focuses on Alan Grayson on the left and Ted Yoho on the right, both Florida representatives. “We’re gonna win,” says Grayson. “Pretty sure.” The Post‘s count suggests they’ve got a clear advantage. It has more than 100 members “solidly against” military action, and the same number leaning against. Another 185 are undecided. Those definitely in favor? Just 25, though that includes the top two leaders from each party (Boehner, Cantor, Pelosi, and Hoyer.) “This is a remarkable moment in American politics,” write David A. Fahrenthold and Paul Kane. “A demonstration that the power of parties may be ebbing after a period of strong partisan discipline.” Things are much closer in the Senate, and Harry Reid predicted today that he’ll get his 60 votes, reports Politico. Meanwhile, a memo from Cantor to GOP lawmakers says they should expect a vote “in the next two weeks.” That suggests to the Hill that House leaders are considering delaying the vote from next week to the one following.

In the olden days I was a long hippie radical and was put down constantly by “high and tight” conservs, the old hard hat conserv….but now things have changed….scary!

As the ongoing debate in Congress makes clear, the decision on whether to strike Syria isn’t the usual bipartisan one. Here are two voices on the right who come to very different conclusions:

  • Peggy Noonan, opposed: What’s the strategy again? “A small, limited strike will look merely symbolic, a face-saving measure,” she writes in the Wall Street Journal. “A strong, broad strike opens the possibility of civil war, and a victory for those as bad as or worse than Assad.” The world must send a message to Syria’s regime, but a military strike isn’t the answer. “Sometimes it shows strength to hold your fire.” Read her full column.
  • Bill Kristol, in favor: Republicans might be tempted to vote no to signal their lack of confidence in President Obama, but that would be a mistake, writes the editor of the Weekly Standard. They’d be weakening the country along with the president. “A party that for at least two generations has held high the banner of American leadership and strength should not cast a vote that obviously risks a damaging erosion of this country’s stature and credibility abroad,” he writes. “For reasons both fastidiously statesmanlike and crassly political, Yes is the right vote.” Read his full column.

I agree with Peggy Noonan!  I have NEVER agreed with her on anything!  We may be one the same page but for different reasons…..but still…..I Agree With Noonan!

I keep waiting for me to wake up from this nightmare so I can run outside to see if Hell is truly frozen.

Am I dreaming?