"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression -- to preserve freedom and peace. Deterrence means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interest, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression."
Ronaldus Magnum stated the above on March 23, 1983.
How clear cut that is. Ronaldus CLEARLY drew a line in the sand. If you attack US, if you attack our ALLIES, if you attack our VITAL INTERESTS, we're gonna ram it in deep and break it off. And we had, after Reagan took over from that limp-noodle Jimmy Carter, a military on track to do it.
Sun Tzu stated this same policy about 3,000 YEARS ago! This strategy of deterring one's enemies through strength HAS NOT changed since then and even today, it still works.
What does it takes to maintain deterrence?
It takes a leader with a set of guts, who looks out FOR THE NATION. Who looks out for the CITIZENS of this country. Who maintains a military so adept at kicking a mudhole in our enemies an then stomping it dry, as outlined in the Constitution, that our enemies would rather slit their own throat that attack us.
It has been attributed to Tiberius who came before Caligula (which it has also been attributed to) who stated: "Let them hate us so long as they fear us."
Can there be anything more closer to the truth?
When we operate from a position of strength, we also negotiate from a position of power. We can AFFORD to be kind, to be generous, to help those who are in need. When we STAND fast to our allies, when we cleave to them in a struggle, we gain trust and honor. An example of this was our relationship with Britain (before Obama) that went back to the 1800's of sticking up for one another.
We were attacked on 9/11. Why? Because al-qaeda, and OBL stated this during the Clinton regime, thought that we were a paper tiger and BJ Bubba reinforced that after he lamely fired a missile into an empty cruise missile factory that he then paid reparations on, from our tax dollars of course, not his OWN bank account.
Only a fool will think that we will never again be threatened. Obama is that fool. Those in his administration that think such are even bigger fools because THEY should know better. However this regime is full of decrepit Carterites and dolts from the BJ Bubba regime. Failed in 1979. Failed in the 90's. And they fail once again.
No better example of peace through strength exists than what happened to the Gunny in New Mexico in the mid 80's. He was on leave, on his Harley, touring America. At a near empty rest stop, he was "cruised" by three men in a pickup truck. On the third pass, they stopped, left their doors open, and approached where the Gunny sat next to his ride. The Gunny opened his jacket to reveal Poppa .45. All three executed the maneuver known as getting the hell out of Dodge. Peace (and property protected) through strength.
Hanoi John Fonda Kerry, Ted DRUNKennedy, and other leftist scumbags in the Senate and Congress have voted AGAINST keeping our military #1 in the world. As Ronaldus Magnum stated: "Every item in our defense program--our ships, our tanks, our planes, our funds for training and spare parts--is intended for one all-important purpose: to keep the peace."
What did Ronaldus Magnum see in Jan 1981, after DECADES of a liberal Congress slashing at the DOD budget? The Gipper found that we had planes that couldn't fly, ships that could not sail, a lack of trained personnel, a lack of fuel, a lack of ammo, lack of a funds for training, and a moral so low, it was barely measurable. We had a lack of recruiting and a lack of retention. The Gunny can verify that because HE WAS THERE!
Yesterday, Obysmal earned his Chamberlain moniker when he disarmed us with a bogus treaty with Russia that must not be adopted by the Senate. Liberals and the fool we have in the White House believe by banning nuclear weapons, it would make a dangerous world more safe but that could not be further from the truth! It requires US to trust an enemy so steeped in lies and deceit and for them to "destroy" their nukes or not proliferate nuclear weapons that will be unverifiable, especially if the UN is involved!
When you have a strong military, when you have a leader and a government that has a backbone, that seeks to live in peace but who won't tolerate aggression against it, then you HAVE peace. When the enemy cannot succeed to attack us by force, then they can only deal with us up front and open. Even if they are hostile to us, what do we fear from them? NOTHING! We can then move on being a rich and prosperous nation that THEN sets the example for others to follow. Only then can the Democratic process of our Constitutional Republic, shown to be the enviable system it is.
The prime example of being weak and negotiating from a position of weakness is what happened when the Western Powers neglected their military power in the 1930's. It directly led to WW2 and the slaughter of millions. Why then would Obama and his myrmidons walk down this very same path? Stupidity? Blind ideologues? Or is it a deeper motive of hating America and wanting it brought down, as a traitor would want?
When we disarm, when we fail to support our military needs, when we fail to support our allies, we send a message to our friends and foes that message is, that we lack the will to remain a free and sovereign nation. That we can no longer meet the challenge that tyrants and dictators pose to us, i.e., Chavez and Putin in Venezuela. When we stood against the Russian Bear in Western Europe, they knew they'd lose in the long run and hence, never attacked. When we saw communist intervention in Grenada and freedom threatened, we attacked it and removed the threat. We stand a watch on the DMZ in South Korea that has kept the Malignant Dwarf
and his minions at bay since 1953! How HARD is it for liberals to understand this? When we oppose offensive threat through strength and show our resolve, it has worked.
Why did Obama cancel the missile shield? In a failed bid for love and Global Kumbaya, he puts millions under the threat of a missile attack launched by the crazed mullahs and another sawed-off runt in Iran. Did it make the world any safer? No. Did it make America appear weaker? Yes. WE "had" the technological edge. WE "had" the ability to negate their missiles by shooting them down. We "had" the ability to significantly reduce any threat or actual attack against the United States. We "had" the ability to ensure that our allies (and the US) could live free of the threat of Iran and the mad mullahs, for example, yet Obama threw this advantage out like a baby with the bathwater. Stupid. Foolish. Naive.
America no longer honors our commitments under this regime. They want to perform social experiments in the military by ditching "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". They want to cut back on personnel, weaponry, equipment, supplies, etc, all in the same vein of the failed Jimmy Carter regime. Liberals, led by Obama, seek to weaken us and our allies, and to no good purpose. America and Americans have NEVER sought military superiority in order to gather an empire. We have always stood for peace and only fought when we were forced to.
It's open season on us folks, with the Weakling in the White House.
Will America never learn that when led by liberals, when put under the yoke of abject Kumbaya Liberalism, we're always put, as the Gunny's old riding buddy so succinctly puts it, "butt's up - squealing."
We're already seeing a build up in So. America. Putin is sending all kinds of military goodies to Venezuela. Now the new leader of Uruguay has pledged allegiance with Chavez.ReplyDelete
The Mexican criminals are becoming bolder about crossing the border to kidnap and kill Americans.
Sadly, I'm expecting kidnappings of Americans overseas and State Dept. warnings to us about traveling overseas.
Watch out Taiwan.
Barry is like Carter on steroids.
But, like Crawfish pointed out on his blog, after Carter, we had Reagan.
An here the community organizer in chief criticizes Palin- "I really have no response, because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues," Obama told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in an interview just aired on Good Morning America-ReplyDelete
Last time I checked neither was he. And she was using the analogy of the kid on the playground who says "punch me in the face..."
The Senate will adopt Barky Butthole's surrender,after all they don't want to appear racist.ReplyDelete
This muslim obo bro to obl aint no American and his intent is to have as many Americans killed off as he can in his personal jihad against the USA. Thank God Almighty Free at last cannot come soon enough for the soul of this great nation.ReplyDelete
The Chicken-in-Chief. The asshat.ReplyDelete
The trouble is, is that we have to SURVIVE this asshat Obummer in order to MAKE it to part two of the Reagan revolution.
Obysmal is putting Americans at risk with this and again, violating his oath of office.
Barry forgets that he wrote a paper on nuclear disarmanent while at Columbia that was so full of kumbaya puke, it was sickening. Maybe he thinks that makes him an expert.
NO doubt those fence sitters will get nice rides in AF1 and bribes for their states for the vote. It's how the Thug-in-Chief works.
That he hates what America is can no longer be doubted. Nov 2010 will rid us of this asshat when he becomes a lame duck. I MAY have to buy tickets to Petreaus' inauguration so I can boo and flip off Barry as he leaves.
You have to admit, Barry would look good in a coat of tar and CHICKEN feathers! haha. Quite fitting for him.ReplyDelete
That treaty has to be ratified.ReplyDelete
The thing is this: These "fellow travelers" are setting us up and at the same time trying to placate us by posing as "kumbaya singers". By the time they get through, Russia will cross the Bearing and TAKE Alaska. They also are building a staging point in Venezuela to come up through Mexico to the Southwest....
It seems nobody sees these threats as real..
I had a similar discussion with a Paulbot recently. He said we should only have enough military to defend out borders and keep our nose out of others' business. My answer was this; what would happen in your town if the police force was disbanded? Sure, there would be areas where the lawless thugs wouldn't operate. They may not rob or rape your neighbor, initially. But as their successes become more prevalent, as they become more emboldened, as their following increased, sooner or later they would not be afraid of you, then you would become the victim. Someone has to represent law in the world, who if not us?ReplyDelete
he has stated that he will defend muslims. i believe his plan is to let our enemies attack us. that is the moment he will use his civilian force to protect muslims while sacrificing whitey. he will then declare martial law to unarm white America. then his deal with putin,chavez,castro,kim will let him rule in America while they carve up the world.ReplyDelete
he believes that they will then elect him to president of the world. if they go for this, they will be using him as a figurehead. odumbo is so blind to his narcism that he will believe the lies our enemies tell him and help them destroy us.
he is the traitor in chief. a rope is to good for this coward and his sincofants.
>". . . The United States [...]ReplyDelete
>will never be an aggressor."
>Ronaldus Magnum stated the above
>on March 23, 1983.
And, like all Repuglicans, Reagan was lying through his teeth. Or perhaps Alzheimer Ronnie was just showing his ignorance of his own country's history.
America has been the aggressor many, many times. It has invaded or otherwise intervened militarily in more countries in its relatively brief existence than the Roman Empire and Nazi Germany put together.
-Indonesia-East Timor (1965)
-Laos (1958, 1973)
-El Salvador (1980)
-Nicaragua (1979, 1997)
-Dominican Republic (1959)
As every credible historian knows, the United States has, from early in the 19th century, been the most militarily aggressive nation on the planet.
Its most recent offense, the wholly illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Iraq, was raw aggression writ large, with a lie as rationale and the lust for vengeance by an incompetent president as cause.
And . . . speaking of Reagan, wasn't he the president who in May 1982 proposed one-third reductions in the strategic missile arsenals of the U.S. and U.S.S.R?
And wasn't it Reagan who in 1987 signed the "Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles?"
Why, yes, he was. Sounds very Obama-like, doesn't it?
I guess Ronald Reagan was also a "surrendercrat" and weak-kneed traitor to this country.
So much for the Reagan Revolution.
And I feel truly sorry for all you rightoid cowards, huddled under your beds, perpetually terrified at the thought of being invaded and brutalized by aliens.
Thank Hera America contains people with the courage to make peace, as well as prepare for war.
Oh, yes . . . and did I mention how refreshing it was to see President Barack Hussein Obama crush Sarah Palin like the insect she is?ReplyDelete
Ever hear of the jitterbug? A quitterbug, that's Palin.
Crazed bimbo got herself stomped!
Yowzah. Don't mess with Barack.
Did I mention how refresing it was to see President Barack Hussein Obama crush Sarah Palin like the insect she is?ReplyDelete
Ever hear of the jitterbug? A quitterbug, that's Palin.
Crazed bimbo got herself stomped!
Don't mess with Barack. Yowzah!
You repeat yourself, Ivan.ReplyDelete
Don't you believe in the freedom of speech?
Or is that only for those that agree with you?
Palin's point must have struck a nerve for BHO to strike out at her personally.
This was such an excellent post that it brought out the trolls squeeling and screaming. Goodness, he may have even opened a history book, but quotes only the parts that suit him. Plus I must have been watching another tv than he was, cause I saw an intelligent conservative squeeze Obama by his private parts and make him yell all the way from Prague. He is such a nothing, that he never has an original thought, that's why he insists on his blackberry. He has answers pumped in to him. He is such a puppet, it should be embarrasing to the libs. But they are so "into" him that they continue to drink his Kool Ade, and will go the way of the Tom Jones followers did.
You confuse the US with France.
Perhaps 1958 in a covert manner.
And you appear to confuse intervention and diplomatic pressure with invasion.
Credible historian, that's not you,Ivan
Although it's waaaaayyyy to early,I'm impressed so far with Palin/Bachmann.Should either one of these ladies get elected,it would be good for America and as a bonus,Ivan-like BHo-bots heads would explode.ReplyDelete
It appears that Palin was RIGHT!
Oct 2008, Gates said: "There is no way to ignore efforts by rogue states such as North Korea and Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, or Russian or Chinese strategic modernization programs. As long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons – and potentially can threaten us, our allies, and friends – then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the United States in the nuclear arena – or with other weapons of mass destruction – could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response… Our nuclear arsenal also helps deter enemies from using chemical and biological weapons. In the first Gulf War, we made it very clear that if Saddam used chemical or biological weapons, then the United States would keep all options on the table. We later learned that this veiled threat had the intended deterrent effect as Iraq considered its options. While some may not see a real nuclear threat to the United States today, we should be mindful that our friends and allies perceive different."
Obummer whined: "Seriously, on as issue as important as this, are you really going to push the notion that Palin's "common sense" is more important that the opinion of the Joint Cheifs, The Secretary of Defence, or the State Department?"
It appears that Obummer has the same historian skills as Ivan the Witless.
You are correct. EVERY TIME Zero speaks without his teleprompter or his blackberry, he stammers, stutters, and takes 17 minutes to answer a yes or no answer! haha
Don't leave out Liz Cheney. She is a sharp Conservative.
You know what I REALLY like about this site? I can wipe your abusive posts towards others on this site. Love that. Kinda like your hero Stalin airbrushing his enemies out of photos after he killed them! haha
Good post. Liked your Poppa .45 story. Thugs and criminals, whether individuals or nations, always look for the weak to prey on first. Flashing some iron causes them to look for easier prey somewhere else... they probably went over to Ivan's cardboard box under the bridge!!! He's just like Obozo... all blustering talk with nothing to back it up.
All Obama is doing is making it easier for the Muslim nutjubs to come to America and strike.ReplyDelete
Luckily, we citizens will make sure that will not happen.
mad vs maadReplyDelete
mutual assured destruction is now muzzie assured American destruction. odumbo is competing with ahmadinejad to be the 12th iman.
ivan is competing in the world village idiot contest. he is currently in first place
At15:47, The Gunster crowed:ReplyDelete
>Hey Ivan, you know what I REALLY
>like about this site? I can wipe
>your abusive posts
Of course you do.
Everyone knows rightoids orgasm just thinking about having the power to tell other people what they may and may not say, and do, and think, etc.
Scratch a conservative and you'll find a power-mad censor every time. Rightoids extol freedom in public, but hate it like poison. It's control that really turns their crank.
Knock yourself out, Gunsel. I'll continue to exercise my freedom of speech, and you can continue to play Stalin.
Ivan, you simple schidt.ReplyDelete
It is the LEFT that shouts down speakers, not the right.
It is the LEFT that has destructive demonstrations, not the right.
It is the LEFT that trashes, burns and leaves the area looking like a surreal WWI battleground, not the right.
By WHAT dope addled mind do you believe it is your First Amendment right to deny another of his First Amendment right by shouting him down?
That this blog, or any other, would "erase" your comments is something you should understand as the left is always trying to silence folks who disagree with them. That your idea of debate is purely insults with nothing new to offer shows the shallowness of your mind. Everything you propose (between insults and ill founded arrogance) has been tried somewhere in the world at least once and failed. Your "ideas" are as old and stinking as yesterday's terd. You do not have an intelligent answer you resort to vulgarity and insults. That alone proves you are far less than the intellectual you see yourself as.
If you have anything to offer besides childish barbs, insults and epithets anyone visiting this site will be glad to discuss them with you. Otherwise I would be glad should you be "86ed" from the site.
As far as "playing with Stalin" goes, you are the only one who believes in communism. But you are so dumb you probably don't even recognize the propaganda you spout daily.
Get a life.
At 15:17, Buckaroo bleated:ReplyDelete
>It is the LEFT that shouts down
Actually, extremists of all stripes are guilty of this, but as all of America saw, it was the rightoid clowns of the Teabag Movement who shouted down speakers at "townhall meetings" called last summer to discuss the government's health-care-reform plans.
Always, it's conservatives who want to quash discussion and debate, not liberals, who are quite able to debate issues on their merits, without relying on lies or FoxNews sound bites.
>It is the LEFT that has destructive >demonstrations
See above. And it was *conservatives,* not liberals, who showed up at public meetings sporting firearms in a blatant attempt to intimidate the opposition. Conservatives need weapons to try to force people to accept their ideas because as a rule, conservatives' ideas suck.
>By WHAT dope addled mind do you
>believe it is your First Amendment
>right to deny another of his First
>Amendment right by shouting him down?
By WHAT dope addled fantasy do you imagine I've ever tried to deny anyone's First Amendment rights?
And, equally to the point, by what twisted delusion do you imagine it's even possible to "shout down" someone on the comments section of an online blog?
Remember asshole, it's the Gunster who's censoring me -- not the other way around.
Grow a brain, dickhead.
Ivan says " "Remember a$$hole..."Grow a brain, d###head."ReplyDelete
and yes I edited your profanity.
Seems like you proved Buck's case
"liberals, who are quite able to debate issues on their merits..."
"Always, it's conservatives who want to quash discussion and debate, not liberals, who are quite able to debate issues on their merits, without relying on lies or FoxNews sound bites."
Rebuttal: Searchlight NV, with the liberals misdirecting busses, throwing eggs , and threatening A. Breitbart. They also told lies about the number of persons attending,claimed Palin didn't have a sound system, to name a few.
Grow up , Ivan. See if you can make one post without an insult or profanity, just pertinent comments.
At 5:43, Pack Rat wrote:ReplyDelete
>liberals [...] claimed Palin didn't have
>a sound system
Palin doesn't have a sound anything. She's certainly not "of sound mind," as the expression goes.
She's astonishingly ignorant about history, politics and the nature and character of her own country. She believes her fellow Americans are so stupid, they'll buy that she's knowledgeable about foreign policy because on a clear day, one can see Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula from Alaska, and so gullible they'll believe she abandoned the governorship of that state because of her great love for her fellow Alaskans.
She writes crib notes on her hand. Her family life is a fiasco. She's a retrograde, brainless bimbo whose consideration as a credible candidate for president by a few thousand American trailer park dwellers is a world-class embarrassment.
So . . . please run her as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. Please.
American Liberals have NEVER presented a putative presidential candidate so utterly, completely unqualified as Sarah Palin.
The fact that the Repuglicans did, in 2008, speaks volumes about the corruption and incompetence of that cabal, and its unsuitability to govern the country ever again.
Ivan, Are you pretending to have trouble understanding?ReplyDelete
If the MSM can't be trusted with details as small as a microphone and speaker, how can we trust them with larger details?
Palin does not appear to be interested in running at this time, having too much fun stirring up the left. I still think you are having trouble telling Fey from Palin.
re bad Democratic canidates, can you say Strom Thurman or Henry Wallace?
Okay, Ivan, you stupid idiot.ReplyDelete
"She's astonishingly ignorant about history, politics and the nature and character of her own country."
Well at least she knows there are 50 states, not 57. She doesn't quote the Declaration of Independence thinking it is the Constitution.
"She writes crib notes on her hand."
Yeah. She doesn't have to use a teleprompter.
"American Liberals have NEVER presented a putative presidential candidate so utterly, completely unqualified as Sarah Palin."
Being governor of a state is a lot more qualifying than a neighborhood organizer. Hell, being on the Wasilla PTA is more qualifying than a neighborhood organizer.
As for qualifying. It has just come out Obama was NEVER a professor of Constitutional law or of anything else. He was an instructor and not a very good one if you talk to his peers.
By the way. Why did Obama and his wife both have to surrender their law licenses?
Try to think (yeah, I know, it's hard, isn't it?) before you open your mouth. It might save you some embarrassment time. But then jerkoids like you aren't smart enough to know when to be embarrassed....
Oh Ivan, you're so brave standing up to the Butch Gunny! I'm so excited, I can't wait to hook up with you again! I dig you Ivan!ReplyDelete
Don't pick on my Ivan Buck! He's more of a man than you'll ever be! He can take a whole gang of angry skinheads and in no time have them calm and relaxed smoking a butt. And I mean smoking a butt!ReplyDelete