Obama on youTube

irans is a threat
Iran is NOT a threat
I don't make promises I cant keep
Ill end the war in Iraq now not tomorrow

http://www.youtube.com/v/8sj91NH5fvw&hl=en_US&fs=1&

Looks like we're starting to point some missiles at Iran. What a world.

I think that video is telling in two major ways. First it makes you wonder how naive and foolish Obama (and liberals) really are; of course if you believe Glen Beck, it also makes you wonder why they're setting us up for annihilation and/or whose side they're really on. The second important issue is, as i've said, the solution to domestic threats is not infringement upon the liberties of our own people by burdensome and invasive security measures, but rather to have a powerful and well-funded military and national defense. People all too often forget, it's not just a fight against terrorists we're engaged in; it is a struggle for supremacy over hostile and dangerous nations like China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuala. Security measures here, in the US, only serve to remove our liberties and hinder our daily business; we MUST take the fight to our enemies, not simply wait for them to try to enter the US or board a plane. Even with harsh security measures, only one terrorist or foreign agent has to slip by to do us irreparable harm or tremendous murder and carnage in the case of the former. We MUST have a military that's well funded, powerful, and decades ahead technologically of ALL of our enemies; this is absolutely necessary for our survival.

Pieces of advice by two of the most brilliant minds in the last few centuries:

"In war the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it." -George S. Patton

"They that can give up liberty to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin

War is the failure of foreign policy.

If your (Berlin) theory is correct, then the proper course of action is to nuke any country that doesn't agree with us.

jpete, i think you have completely misunderstood everything I was trying to say in my previous post; that's sad really. I refuse to get into any further serious discussion with a "straw-man" response such as that.

You use this quote

"In war the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it." -George S. Patton

and then assert I "misunderstood"?

How would a person interpret your point of view?

And what would I infer from this?

it is a struggle for supremacy over hostile and dangerous nations like China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuala

Don't take your patronizing tone with me. You said. Stand by it.

jpete wrote:War is the failure of foreign policy.

OK, let's assume that is correct. So your saying Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because of our failure in foreign policy. I'll assume that it was because we would not continue to sell them oil and scrap iron to fuel their war machine to kill Chinese men, rape their women and use babies tied to stakes for bayonet practice. What exactly was the Chinese foreign policy failure that lead to it's invasion in the late 20's? If you get this right, I have a few hundred more since the birth of Christ.

Most wars are fought because someone wants what someone else has.

coaledsweat wrote:

jpete wrote:War is the failure of foreign policy.

OK, let's assume that is correct. So your saying Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because of our failure in foreign policy. I'll assume that it was because we would not continue to sell them oil and scrap iron to fuel their war machine to kill Chinese men, rape their women and use babies tied to stakes for bayonet practice. What exactly was the Chinese foreign policy failure that lead to it's invasion in the late 20's? If you get this right, I have a few hundred more since the birth of Christ.

Most wars are fought because someone wants what someone else has.

As harsh as it sounds, the issues between Japan and China were between Japan and China. And we certainly had the right to stop selling them stuff if we didn't agree with their actions in China.

My question is, would Japan have been in any position to do what it did if not for Commodore Perry sailing in and pointing a gun in their faces and demanding they trade with us and give us land to build a naval base on?

Japan was isolationist until the Black Ships came knocking on their door and showed them that maybe they needed to militarize.

Again. A failure of foreign policy. We can REQUEST to trade with another country. But do we really have the RIGHT to FORCE a country to trade with us?

I see, so it was a failed US foreign policy that caused the Japanese to invade China. Is that correct?

coaledsweat wrote:I see, so it was a failed US foreign policy that caused the Japanese to invade China. Is that correct?

The act of threatening violence on a group of people under the pretext of trade but with the actual purpose of "force projection" around the globe?

Yes, I believe that it a failure of foreign policy. Especially in light of the people in China, US service members, and the Japanese themselves who were killed as a direct result of it.

You wouldn't accept China over here with warships demanding a military base in the USA would you?

So Japan goes from isolationist to imperialist. They live on an island with few and limited natural resources. So how do you get them? Either trade or conquest. And they didn't have much to trade with so that leaves one option.

People look at history like a collection of unconnected events. I look at them as all connected by unbroken lines. Everything that happens, effects something else. Maybe not now. But eventually. It's unavoidable.

If Carter and the CIA don't help the mujhadeen and OBL, would there have been a 9/11?

People, especially people running governments, should think a little more about stuff like this.

7 paragraphs and I don't see an answer. Failed US foreign policy caused Japan to invade China, is that correct?

coaledsweat wrote:7 paragraphs and I don't see an answer. Failed US foreign policy caused Japan to invade China, is that correct?

Maybe you missed it.

Yes, I believe that it a failure of foreign policy.

With the same logic, what US foreign policy failure led to Hitler's invasion of Poland?

jpete wrote:The act of threatening violence on a group of people under the pretext of trade but with the actual purpose of "force projection" around the globe?

Perry was sent to Japan because they were in the habit of murdering missionaries, lost travelers and shipwrecked seamen. You make it sound like we just had to have paper houses, samurai swords and nice silk robes. The fact that they decided to militarize and conquer their neighbors was not a US foreign policy failure. They coveted their neighbors property and looked down at the inferior people around them and decided they were not worthy of it or the lives they led. Murderers must accept a threat of violence when they commit the violent act, would you expect otherwise?

coaledsweat wrote:

jpete wrote:The act of threatening violence on a group of people under the pretext of trade but with the actual purpose of "force projection" around the globe?

Perry was sent to Japan because they were in the habit of murdering missionaries, lost travelers and shipwrecked seamen. You make it sound like we just had to have paper houses, samurai swords and nice silk robes. The fact that they decided to militarize and conquer their neighbors was not a US foreign policy failure. They coveted their neighbors property and looked down at the inferior people around them and decided they were not worthy of it or the lives they led. Murderers must accept a threat of violence when they commit the violent act, would you expect otherwise?

Japan was isolationist for two centuries. They just "happened" to figure out that China was there right after we showed up with several warships?

Japan makes a nice place forward operating base. It wasn't paper houses and samurai swords we were looking for. It was a place to dock and refuel to continue our conquest of the world.

But your last line is interesting. You seem to have justified terrorist acts like 9/11 and the underwear bomber.