June 1, 2012
-
Iran’s going to Nuke the sh** out of us…
Not really, they don’t have the capability, but Obama’s busy trying to force them into a war.
WHAT AUTHORITY DOES OBAMA HAVE TO ATTACK OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE THIS???
Not really, they don’t have the capability, but Obama’s busy trying to force them into a war.
WHAT AUTHORITY DOES OBAMA HAVE TO ATTACK OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE THIS???
Comments (7)
It’s bizarre how many liberals saw through the fear mongering of “OMG IRAQ HAZ NUKES!!” but they don’t see the same thing with the Iran BS.
The same authority that George W. Bush used to invade Iraq. Stop trying to make this a partisan issue. Both parties are equally as bad at warmongering, if that’s what you want to believe.
At least a cyber attack doesn’t cost as much in men, materials, and money that the Iraq has and continues to do so.
@cmdr_keen - But is he really making it a party issue? He said “Obama” because Obama is the one doing it now. I don’t see anything claiming that Bush didn’t do the same thing, or that a Republican president wouldn’t. But, he happens to be the one in office.
@WaitingToShrug - It’s the whole tenor of his blog that leads me to draw the insinuation. Also, if you read the article he linked, the cyber-attacks started under George W. Bush, and were only continued by the Obama administration. That wasn’t mentioned, yet Obama was directly named. Why one and not the other?
I doubt very much that if Obama had an (R) after his name, this blog wouldn’t have been posted, thus it IS partisan and it IS a party-based blog.
@cmdr_keen - I’m a libertarian. Bush AND Obama can go fuck themselves. The “tenor” of my blog is Anti-government. But, to be fair, Bush didn’t win the damn peace prize. The hypocrisy of the current regime is paralyzing.
@cmdr_keen - I think you’re reading it as anti-Obama, which isn’t necessarily pro-Bush. I have to say though, of the two, I find Obama’s actions more offensive, simply because of the way that Democrats (particularly the president) attacked Bush for his warmongering. They are doing the same thing. I find it very hypocritical, considering how a large part of Obama’s campaign was about stopping the wars and bringing soldiers home.
@justfinethanku@WaitingToShrug - - Obama didn’t ask for the peace prize, and from memory he was just as embarrassed about it as most people were. You can’t blame that on him, and he was in a catch-22 situation: damned if he refused the award, damned if he accepted it. Again, the article states that Obama is allowing the cyber programs started by Bush to continue, as it is the interest of world national security. I’m going to take the Administration’s conclusions over national security than conclusions reached through leaked information.
With the wind-down of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the reduction in combat missions undertaken by American forces, it’s clear that Obama and the Administration are fulfilling campaign promises in a responsible way. Given the actions of the Arab Spring last year, especially in Libya and now Syria, Obama has done well to keep American forces out of those conflicts despite hawkish elements in Congress – such as Senator John McCain – calling for full US-involvement, including troop deployments.
There are no politicians - none – who don’t have the stench of hypocrisy surrounding them, and it’s a result of the mega-lobbyist nature of modern politics. In an ideal world, perhaps, it wouldn’t exist but not even Ron Paul is immune to the stench and some of his “reasonable” positions are either convenient, point-scoring ones that are impractical or are ones that do far more harm than good. The nature of current events, daily changes in society, and the increase in new information becoming apparent means that those who have the inflexibility to alter their worldviews, opinions, and strategies are doomed to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
When it comes to National Security, there is a fine line to be kept, and one that government must play a critical role. Calling for a retreat into isolationism just doesn’t work. It was tried in the 1920s and failed, and since then the process of globalization has only accelerated and grown exponentially.