Beware of what? On Oct 7, 1:57 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > Barbarians Beware! > > On Oct 7, 11:20 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > War is barbaric. If we are not prepared to be barbaric we should not > > go to war. > > > On Oct 6, 12:13 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Travis, > > > > Post WWII American politicians of BOTH parties are generally idiots > > > when it comes to waging war. > > > > They want to appeal "tough" in order to appeal to certain voting > > > blocks. But they don't want to fight. > > > When they do decide to fight, they don't want to take any casualties. > > > If they DO take casualties, they don't want it publicized. > > > The only way to NOT have casualties is to NOT fight in the first > > > place. > > > But NOT fighting might make them appear to be "weak" in the eyes of > > > certain voting blocks. > > > But fighting might make them appear to be "imperialist warmongers" to > > > a certain voting block. > > > > So they are left with trying to fight, with no casualties , while at > > > the same time withdrawing ALSO with no casualties. While doing this > > > they must make sure no American anywhere, other than the ones doing > > > the actual fighting and their families, suffer ANY negative > > > consequences whatsoever due to the war. No draft, no extra taxes, no > > > shortages, CERTAINLY no rationing of ANYTHING, no INCONVIENCE. > > > Americans don't like to be inconvenienced. > > > > DISGUSTING. > > > > On Oct 6, 10:12 am, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Astonishing. This is from the New Republic. Ow. > > > > > Will "narcissist" be for Obama what "stupid" was for Bush? > > > > (...Except, of course, that Bush wasn't actually stupid…and Obama is > > > > actually narcissistic) > > > > > --S. > > > > >http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/rio-1-chicago-0-the-politics-narcis... > > > > > Rio, 1 -- Chicago, 0. The Politics of Narcissism and General McChrystal > > > > Marty Peretz > > > > > Frankly, I don't care that Chicago lost its bid for the Olympics. > > > > Really, I don't. > > > > > But maybe the president's trip to Copenhagen was useful since his top > > > > battle commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, traveling > > > > from England to Denmark, had the opportunity to meet Barack Obama on > > > > Air Force One. Their talking with each other is, after all, a rarity. > > > > In fact, Obama and McChrystal had spoken but once since the general > > > > took on AfPak as his turf in early June 2009. With whom, then, is > > > > Obama conversing? And how independent of mind on military matters are > > > > they? Or are they of the touchy-feely persuasion? > > > > > Speaking in diplomatese, the White House press office graded the > > > > Obama-McChrystal conversation as "productive," which means neither a > > > > disaster nor especially gratifying. My guess is that, in this context, > > > > it actually means not impolite. Their differences have been a big > > > > topic in the news, and the standoff is clear: McChrystal wants more > > > > troops and has a strategy to mobilize them; the president wants less, > > > > many many less, and to get Kabul off the nightly news. During the > > > > campaign, he spoke of the American involvement in Afghanistan as a war > > > > of necessity rather than a war of choice, like Iraq, which was made to > > > > seem like a war of sinful desire. No longer. > > > > > If the president is true to his essential beliefs about foreign > > > > affairs, Obama actually wants out but can't design a clean exodus. His > > > > party swallowed deeply when it played along with his election strategy > > > > of pitting Iraq against Afghanistan. At rallies, the candidate's > > > > mention of a free Afghanistan was never an applause line. But now, > > > > nine months into the administration's life, there is much Democratic > > > > rumbling in the Capitol cloakrooms against more troops on the AfPak > > > > war front, the demand for which everyone knew was on its way, and even > > > > against maintaining the present troop level. Senator Carl Levin of > > > > Michigan, a man full of himself, will be nearly as puffy and > > > > cantankerous with Obama as he was with George Bush. > > > > > So, while the president did make time for a rather brief conversation > > > > with McChrystal in Copenhagen, the real purpose of his rushed > > > > trans-Atlantic flight was to grease the International Olympic > > > > Committee into naming Chicago as epicenter of the 2016 games. If you > > > > read closely in the newspapers, it wasn't as if Chicagoans were so > > > > ecstatic for the prize. Having the Olympics in town often turns out to > > > > be a big bust, burdening its residents, businesses and taxes for years > > > > thereafter. And, since the president is so much against national > > > > chauvinism, he might have contemplated that the games turn out to be > > > > among the most ritualized examples of hate on the planet, with the > > > > added cost of moving the poor around to make way for the rich > > > > visitors. When I was in Capetown, South Africa this summer, I saw from > > > > afar the still-being-built stadium for the 2010 World Cup soccer > > > > games. Now, South Africans are mad for soccer. But the talk in the > > > > street was against the expenditure, which comes to billions of rand > > > > and hundreds of millions of dollars even before anybody faces up to > > > > the inevitable cost over-runs. How many shanty-towns could have been > > > > replaced with this money? Or how about putting a water supply into > > > > these jungles of human refuse? > > > > > Anyway, whatever thought Obama may have given to these matters about > > > > Chicago, Valerie Jarrett had his ear. (The last time we know she had > > > > his ear was when she convinced him to bestow the National Medal of > > > > Freedom on that nice frigid anti-Semite, Mary Robinson. Beware!) > > > > > The front-page lead headline in the weekend edition of the Financial > > > > Times said it much too clearly for Obama's vanity: "Rio in carnival > > > > mood after Brazil beats Obama to the 2016 Olympics." By contrast, it > > > > was a huge triumph for Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, > > > > who has long created his persona as an antagonist to the U.S. Not a > > > > Hugo Chavez, mind you, but an antagonist nonetheless. And not a danger > > > > to foreign investors. Lula actually held the line against the new > > > > Latin cult of socialism. > > > > > As the FT went on to say, the IOC "delivered an astonishing snub" to > > > > the president "by eliminating Chicago in the first round of voting." > > > > Chicago was dumped before Madrid was dumped and before Tokyo was > > > > dumped. Had the Obama folk not done any canvassing which would have > > > > alerted them to the fact that they were jet-setting to a humiliation? > > > > Maybe Michelle's presence added to the over-confident sense of > > > > invincibility. Moreover, how could they lose with Oprah Winfrey in > > > > tow? > > > > > So this question arises: If Obama could not get Chicago over the > > > > finish line in Copenhagen, which was a test only of his charms, how > > > > will he persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear weapons capacity or the > > > > Arabs, to whom he has tilted (we are told) only tactically, to sit > > > > down without their 60 year-old map as guide to what they demand from > > > > Israel. > > > > > What I suspect is that the president is probably a clinical > > > > narcissist. This is not necessarily a bad condition if one maintains > > > > for oneself what the psychiatrists call an "optimal margin of > > > > illusion," that is, the margin of hope that allows you to work. But > > > > what if his narcissism blinds him to the issues and problems in the > > > > world and the inveterate foes of the nation that are not susceptible > > > > to his charms? > > > > > Chicago will survive its disappointments and Obama will, as well. It > > > > is the other stage sets on which the president struts--like he > > > > strutted in Cairo and at the United Nations--that concern me. > > > > > I know that the president believes himself a good man. My nervy query > > > > to him is: "Does he believe America to be a good country?"- Hide quoted > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
