|
||||
|
I am Tom Freeland,
a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office.
I'm on Twitter as NMissC
Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page. Search NMC
PagesCategoriesBlogRollLaw: NationalMississippi & Local: BlogsMississippi & Local: PressPolitics |
34 comments to Charge! |
Write NMCtips, tirades, or just say hello at nmisscommentor (@) gmail.com
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
|
||
|
Copyright © 2013 Tom Freeland - All Rights Reserved
Technorati Profile
bys 69 queries. 1.011 seconds. %d bloggers like this: |
||||
Perfect. You have memorialized Obama’s weakest moment of the night.
I’m now convinced that Floyd Pink is, in fact, Bay Buchanan. Sheesh.
FP *is* voter fraud.
I want to hear Floyd Pink explain how Romney’s belief that Iran is landlocked suggests he has a clue about the world. Syria is Iran’s route to the sea?
Laying aside that whole Iran-has-a-long-coastline thing (hello Persian Gulf?), I have to wonder about a route to the sea that goes through two countries not entirely historically friendly with Iran, Turkey and Iraq.
That Iran-Iraq hostility has flared up pretty strongly pretty recently. And the issues between the Persians and Turkey goes pretty long and pretty deep if I’m remembering right.
I’ll bet you $10,000 Pinky’s explanation contains the word “petulant” and accuses your map of the Middle East of liberal bias.
It was a wonderfully rehearsed line, but the number of aircraft carriers has fallen in recent years, too. In fact, the number of all ships has fallen. Obama is a jackass, so what kind of jackass comment would he make to explain this? The fact is he can’t, the navy has shrunk.
I never thought Gene Taylor was an effective congressman. He was not influential, although he worked hard. but he was solid on several points and one was the need for a strong navy. The decline in naval shipbuilding and mothballing existing ships has dented our navy’s capacity. We must have not only carriers, as O mentioned, but also frigates, cruiser, amphibious ones and the whole gamut. O probably scored a debate hit on the ship comment but I don’t think the point about military defense was particularly compelling.
CRS, are you seriously contending there is a problem with the size of our navy, now? Are you assuming that the entire world is going to combine and challenge us? In 1916, we had a navy that was third in the world and not remotely capable of challenging England or Germany. Now, we have a better navy than every other one in the world combined.
This is the most asinine fake military preparedness issue since John Kennedy’s “missile gap” in 1960, and probably even worse.
The Pentagon has been complaining of pork barrel politics delivering them weapons systems and other strategic/tactical systems that are unwanted, unworkable, and mission inappropriate. If our Navy wanted the alleged missing ships in order to serve its mission, there is little evidence to prove it. God save the U.S. and our forces who serve and protect us!
What did the troopers in the picture have in their hands before somone photoshopped the rifles in place? It makes for a really strange scene. Esp. since I have never seen a bayonet carried while on horse. The carbine that the one trooper shown has at his side makes it clear something is wrong. Suggest someone give them some bottles of Miller Lite before we really get confused.
Swords?
If Obama gets a second term, he will have to explain his plans for the American Empire. The Obama grand strategy is to be a Pacific power which means a network-centric ‘navy’. Joint forces will be finally joint. The savings that the original Defense Dept plan envisioned will be realized as the traditional navy, air force, & c are put under a single service. Secretary Mabus will be out of a job since the navy will not have a separate identity, but we could see him as the new Secretary of Joint Defense. The President did mention the military importance of space. We could see a further combination of the domestic security and law enforcement agencies.
The fact that the Democratic Base thinks the President’s snarky comment on “bayonets and horses” was a winner is the story of this election. Obama looked and acted like the challenger all night. President Axelrod knows the only way they can win now is to get the base out and that performance sacrificed the middle to try and do it. Will not work.
Those small ball cheap shots actually galvanize the Republican Base and push the middle toward Republicans. The net effect of this debate will be a gain of 1 or 2 points for Romney. The Republican base is much quieter than the Democratic base but look at the Chick-fil-A phenomenon for clues of their engagement this time around.
The margin of victory for Romney will be about 2-3 points higher than the last relatively fair poll suggests because many Democrats who are saying they are going to vote this time, won’t.
NMC,
The navy today is smaller than it was 20 years ago. A strong argument can be made that America’s interests can be served by this smaller navy. To use the horses and bayonets line that Obama used us just jackassery, in my view. It doesn’t address the real issue.
Really both Obama and Romney are too warmongerish. The old “two-wars” doctrine is probably out of date; the only war we really need to win is if we are attacked.
Did anybody but me notice the question about if Israel is attacked would that be viewed as an attack on America? Israel was attacked in 1948 and 1973 and Israel attacked pre-emptively in 1956 and 1967. These were not viewed as wars America needed to get involved in. The Israelis fought all of these wars on their own, and in fact as I remember in 1973 the U.S. interceded on behalf of Egypt in order to prevent to total humiliation of its Third Army (admittedly out of fear Russia would enter the fray). While I think in recent years it’s always been understood that the U.S. would likely support Israel in a time of war, that’s a far cry from saying that an attack on Israel is the same as an attack on the U.S. Both candidates seemed to accept this new view, which is really a major shift in policy.
the only war we really need to win is if we are attacked.
Attacked “how”? Landing an invasion force on one of our coasts … yes, that would be an attack. Ain’t gonna happen. Simple as that. Ain’t gonna happen.
But what if China declared the South China Sea–from Hong Kong to Taiwan to the Philippines, to Malaysia-Singapore, to Vietnam–to be a “Chinese” sea controlled by China on terms China dictates? How ’bout that? Izzat an “attack” on the USA?
What if Malaysian-Indonesian “pirates” declared that no shipping could transit the Mallaca Strait without paying ransoms, or having ships hijacked? Izzat an attack on the USA?
There’s no escaping the harsh reality that more than 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by seawater … that more than 80% of Earth’s population resides within 200 miles of a shoreline … that 90% of the world’s commerce travels by sea. So … tell me what we “really need to win.”
Regarding the Iraq-Iran confusion or misspeak or whatever it was, I didn’t notice. Apparently it’s not a big deal because this is the only place I have seen reference to it.
I think most people, certainly I, know that Romney is aware of the geography of the middle-east just like most people know The Little Prince is aware that there are 50, not 57, states.
Again, Romney will go up in the polls because of this debate.
Ben,
I am no longer willing for the United States to shoulder alone the cost of keeping the South China Sea free and open to trade. I support a strong military, and as I commented I was offended by Obama’s snarky comment.
I do think it makes more sense to have a stong navy than to have massive numbers of troops stationed all over the globe. But ultimately, it’s time for some of these other countries to start paying up while we defend our shores and borders, which by the way we aren’t doing very well.
I don’t like Obama myself – he sheds too much innocent blood for my taste – but I actually looked up the transcript about the horses and bayonets.
He actually didn’t say what the Republican partisans are claiming he said. He never said we don’t use horses and bayonets anymore.
What he SAID was, that we use fewer horses and bayonets, and more aircraft carriers and planes, etc.
What, actually, is true.
It simply amazes me that an honest disagreement over whether we need more boats or less turns into a social media slug fest over a statement that Obama never actually made.
This country is hopeless. Just hopeless.
John Pittman Hey,
I never misquoted Obama. I still found his comment to be jackassery. Both Biden and Obama seemed to make it a goal to see how rude and condescending they could be in the debates.
Admittedly the military has changed, but the number of aircraft carriers is down from 20 years ago. Now an argument can be made that current global conditions don’t require the same military that we needed in 1988, but there was no need for the jackass remark.
I really, really want less war and I don’t see either candidate going in that direction.
ColRebSez,
I never said you did. I was reacting to the general propaganda blitz by Republican partisans against what Obama said. Their main technique has been misrepresentation.
You do have to admit, however, that Romney wanting to compare numbers of ships between now and 1917 is pretty stupid itself. I think that’s what Obama was trying to target, and I think he did a pretty good job of it.
I think that, just barely, Romney is more likely to escalate war than Obama, because Romney will most likely start a war with Iran in support of Israel, while Obama seems a little more (just a little) reluctant to do so.
That being said, I cannot in good conscience vote for any man who endorses assassinations. Period. My moral line in the sand is this: I cannot vote for a man who promises to shed innocent blood, or to take life off the battlefield without due process.
“In 1916, America controlled about 11% of the world’s naval power. In 2010, we controlled about 50%.”
Russia comes in no. 2 at 11%, the proportion we had in 1916.
Can we please shut up about this bogus non-issue now?
Willard’s Navy quip was just a bone tossed to Navy-heavy and shipbuilding states–Virginia, Maine, Mississippi, Alabama–trying to gain whatever votes he thinks might follow. He doesn’t know squat about the Navy … couldn’t distinguish Navy blue from battleship grey.
Politics is simply the entertainment division at the military-industrial complex. Frank Zappa
CRS takes Obama’s very presence in the White House as an insufferable act of condescension, so his reaction to Obama’s refusal to take Romney’s know-nothing statistic seriously is just the latest in a long line of imaginary insults.
The GWB Administration was building only about 6 ships per year because they badly mismanaged the new ship programs in development that doubled or tripled in projected costs so they had to be delayed and scaled back. The old ships that the new ships were meant to replace were retired anyway so the overall fleet numbers dropped.
When the Democrats took Congress in 2007, Gene Taylor, House Seapower Subcommittee Chairman (disclosure – my boss at the time), brokered the deal to build fewer DDG-1000s (which had become absurdly expensive for a destroyer) and more DDG-51s (more than enough destroyer for the missions but at less than half the cost).
When Obama came in, he appointed Ray Mabus as Secretary of the Navy. Among other important shipbuilding decisions, Mabus fixed the Littoral Combat Ship program, getting lower prices from the shipbuilders by making them compete for multiyear, firm fixed-price contracts. Now those ships are being built.
AS Ben said, Romney’s interest in Navy ships is based on pandering to Virginia, and to a lesser extent Florida, which has Mayport and other Naval bases, many Navy retirees, and is the voting home state of a lot of active duty Navy who switch to Florida as their official residence when they pass through because FL has no individual income tax.
Space Command and subs are doing the patrol duty now. These Littoral ships do the anti-sub and drug duty. Beyond showing the flag cruises by our heavy ships we don’t really need a navy anymore or the coast guard cutters for that matter. The surface fleet role is diminished. Admiral Mullen wanted the littoral fleet. The Space Command is the new navy now. The Pentagon and the traditional departments are a Washington fetish. The DOD is the world’s largest employer and its not really needed anymore. Our national security depends on cyber protection and the global anti- crime & terrorist efforts.
What I didn’t know is that the number of ships the Navy has is actually slightly UP from 2007 when Bush was in charge.
In fact, 2007 was the lowest number of ships since the 19th Century!
Check it out here:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm
John Pittman Hay,
Just out of curiosity, how do you define “assassination”? Is the targeting of a single person in a group of enemy combatants an assassination? I’m opposed to the assassination of civilians but not to the targeting killing of those actually engaged in military or paramilitary action.
I was outraged at the targeting and eventual assassination of our ally, civilian leader Muammar Gaddafi. NATO, which could not act without Obama’s approval, was willing to murder Gaddafi’s civilian son and three of his young grandchildren in making one assassination attempt. Baby killing as public policy — really unbelievable.
ColRebSez,
I agree with you about Gaddafi. What sort of message does it send for us to bomb and kill an actual ally? Not that he should’ve been our ally, but that’s the decision they had made, and then they stabbed him in the back.
I’m uncomfortable with all forms of warfare that kill people at a distance that are not an actual threat, under arms, at the time.
I realize that my views would severely limit modern warfare, and I consider that a positive feature.
So, for example, I’m not opposed to a drone attack against an individual who is aiming a weapon at someone, or actively planting an IED.
Which means that, practically, I consider almost all our drone attacks as assassinations that ought to be condemned, because those attacks are justified based, not upon actual imminent threats, but “patterns of conduct,” historical analyses, etc, etc.
I would consider the killing of Yamamoto as an immoral assassination, and our country’s moral and political leaders would have agreed with me, pretty much from the founding of our country up until we killed him. Then all of sudden, targeting non-arms-bearing enemy became morally ok.
I am a bit uncomfortable with the concept of snipers, targeting enemies at a distance, but so long as the enemy is actively engaged in battle, I suppose I could go along with that.
But the real moral crisis that we face in America is, that we kill totally innocent people in the hundreds of thousands, deliberately, or with wanton disregard at least.
Both Obama and Romney will continue to embrace such immoral killings of innocent people, and therefore I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for either of them.
Bottom line is this: come next year, our president will continue to deliberately kill innocent people, but he will not be in office due to my vote. Of that, at least, I can take solace.
“I would consider the killing of Yamamoto as an immoral assassination, and our country’s moral and political leaders would have agreed with me”
Really? So if Union troops had stumbled upon Lee and shot him off his horse, that would’ve been an “immoral assassination”?
Shooting Lee in a battle would have been fine. But anywhere else would have been wrong.
Same goes for the other side too. What Boothe did was wrong too, no matter how partisan a person might be in the whole matter.
I think it might behoove some of you to get shot at … frequently, suddenly, and effectively, both when you expect it and when you don’t quite expect it, over a protracted period of time. Your views will shift … you focus will change. You’ll STFU.
Ben: Very well said.