Posts Tagged ‘history’

Oh My God! Did I read Brzezinski right?

Posted: September 19, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news, war
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Via the Hot air headlines The Weekly standard finds a bombshell hidden in this daily beast story!

How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?
We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

What if they fly over anyway?
Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, off the Sinai Peninsula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the ship was the object of friendly fire.]

It’s interesting to note that the Beast fails to mention the subsequent apology and payment of over $12,800,000 in compensation for the dead and wounded and for damage to the ship itself.

Zbigniew Brzezinski I would remind you was Jimmy Carter’s National Security adviser.

In his newly published book The Army Insider. (My review here, Buy It!) Retired Sgt Major David C. Carden says this about the Jimmy Carter years on page 141:

Circa 1977 to 1981. There are more learned people than me that can write about Jimmy Carter’s presidency. I can only say that from day one, the Military started belt tightening; there was a 444 day black mark painted on the United States of America: eight American Servicemen died attempting to wipe away that black mark: and one payback is still owed.

There must have been something good during those years when Zbigniew was national security adviser. Dave?

The best thing that happened for the military Services and America during the Carter administration was that Ronald Reagan was elected the next president of the United states.

I’d have to agree.

Apparently like Buchanan ol Ziggy hasn’t gotten over the Liberty either.

His daughter is still a handsome woman no matter what Robert Stacy McCain says.

Speaking of costs, what is the actual goal?

Posted: September 18, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , , , ,

Speaking more of the Missile stuff it also a question of the deterrent value I have another question. What is the actual goal? If the goal is deterrence that you might not get what you are paying for. Consider the following:

Situation A: There are missiles deployed in and controlled by Poland and a threat (any threat) comes up. It is a question of Poland defending itself. It can employ it’s defense on their own terms. It doesn’t have to involve the US at all in terms of blood and treasure once they are deployed.

Situation B: The missiles are on a US ship and a threat comes up. It then becomes a question of the United States opening fire on another nation and all the political and geopolitical ramifications involved therein.

Not only are the costs greater for us, but if we decide that for whatever reason we don’t want to pay them, Poland is screwed.

If the goal is actual deterrence then situation A is better than situation B no matter what the technology is.

However if the goal is to appease Russia and Putin then it’s a great plan, but hey not to worry they said it’s ok and it’s not like the Pols think we are selling them out or something. Oh wait:

Strategic ally? Mainstay of our security? End of illusions. United States of America, for which we have for each call, turned his back to us. U.S. President lightly tossed into the trash heap construction of the Poland and the Czech anti-missile shield. The massive military installation was to give special meaning to us in NATO and to strengthen our position towards Russia. But America, instead of Warsaw, he prefers dialogue with Moscow. Yesterday the whole world went round decision Barack Obama Kremlin triumphs, and the Poles have been exposed to the wind.

Hey maybe it’s the Buchanan “Don’t defend Poland and WWII is a fight between Hitler and Russia” plan all over again! Change we can believe in!

Well I’m sure we can straighten it out with the Polish Prime minister, if we was willing to take our calls that is.

Don’t keep putting coins in the machine.

Posted: September 18, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , , ,

One of the more reasonable arguments concerning the White Houses’ missile defense move is the cost savings it entails. It sounds pretty good but it is deceptive.

First of all political capital and possibility monetary capital was spent to get the permission to put the stuff there in the first place. Now that it will not be deployed that is all now a loss.

Second of all it means if either the technology or threat changes then we would have to spend it all again, only this time we would have less credibility and it would have a higher cost in political and financial capital, in fact it might not even be in time. Sort of like the four stage strategy of diplomacy via Sir Humphrey starting around 6 min in this clip or if you just want the meat at 7:40

If your goal is to actually do nothing then it’s a great plan. If your goal is you know actual deterrence it’s not a good idea. It’s like losing money in a machine and then just putting more in again instead of getting your quarters back first.

But Datechguy you say: Aren’t these missiles actually better than the ground stuff and more flexable? It’s the arugment in the LGF thread on the subject that was offered and here is my answer verbatim:

Those things are true in the physical sense but it is a worse deterrent in a political sense. If a country is under actual threat there is little question in the mind of the potential aggressor that it will use a deterrent under it’s own control on it’s own soil.

If the deterrent is not on their own soil then the political will of the guarantor is taken into effect. Europe’s graveyards are full of casualties of the lack of political will.

That’s why US troops South Korea are a more effective deterrent then a promise to deploy troops would be. It’s also why we actually had troops in Europe instead of relying on a nuclear deterrent. Your more likely to stay in the pot if you already have money in it.

That is the reality.

It depends on the meaning of the word “No”

Posted: September 18, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

A clip was played from Ann Curry’s interview with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Morning Joe today. When asked if what he said means that Iran will not weaponize their nukes, he answers saying they don’t need it leading to the following exchange:

So does that mean your answer is no?

What do you mean by “No”? (That might not be exact when they play the clip again I’ll make sure to make it so.)

Curry then actually asks him if this is his final answer. She actually uses that phraseology.

The Irony of all of this is simply amazing. What was the truth last time when a president asked what the meaning of a simple word means?

I’m feeling better and better about this decision now.

Update: They didn’t replay the clip, I’m sure it will turn up somewhere.

Older Entries
Newer Entries