12

Not the Biggest Kid on Every Block, by Robert Gore

Posted by straightlinelogic 9 years, 4 months ago to Government
44 comments | Share | Flag

Before he was elected President Obama expressed some skepticism towards Pax Americana. Coming from the promisor of $2500 in insurance savings and keeping your medical plan and doctor, that skepticism was probably just another lie to solidify support among his party’s dwindling antiwar wing. Whatever his true feelings, Obama is now just as captured by the neoconservatives and the military-industrial-intelligence complex as his predecessors. Syria brings out Obama’s dithering and dissembling worst. If he does decide to play ball with Putin, the complex will regard it as a tactical retreat, not a sea change, and will do everything in its power to keep the flickering flame of global empire lit. There is too much money and power at stake to let it die.

Putin understands what they do not: while the power exists to destroy the world, that same power prevents any nation from ruling it. Unfortunately, delusion about the latter could lead to the former.

This is an excerpt. Please click the link above for the full article.
SOURCE URL: http://straightlinelogic.com/2015/09/28/not-the-biggest-kid-on-every-block-by-robert-gore/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 4 months ago
    Hello straightlinelogic,
    Today we are but few that even know of the Monroe doctrine.
    Obama is playing checkers... or maybe golf... Putin is playing Chess like Kasparov.
    Another great article for the archives.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
      Thank you. I believe we're paid up members of the Remnant (Isaiah's Job, Albert J. Nock. If you need a link I'll send you one.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 3 months ago
        Hello straightlinelogic,

        Thank you for sharing that most excellent parable.

        Isaiah's Job, Albert J. Nock.- ..."The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either... Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not." "Digito monstrari et dicier, Hic est!"... Prophet of the Remnant..."It is a good job, an interesting job, much more interesting than serving the masses; and moreover it is the only job in our whole civilization, as far as I know, that offers a virgin field." "Sat patriae Priamoque datum." Well done.

        It is another example of the truth behind the saying that "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
        Here is a link for anyone interested. https://mises.org/library/isaiahs-job
        Regards,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 9 years, 3 months ago
    Nice article, SLL! Here, I'll throw in my 2 cents by rephrasing one of your lines.

    Putin understands what they do not: if he can keep the Muslims in the Middle East killing each other, then they won't be killing Russians, even if he has to use the American military to do it.

    As alluded to elsewhere here, Putin is playing chess while O is still figuring out checkers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 3 months ago
    Every man who gets to the office of president wants to be the ultimate warrior, for all his anti war b/s 0 is no different. They like the power over all of the people and hope to be cheered on. The reality is that I personally believe the bulk of the country is just tired of the constant going to war in some fashion. In Russia the people don't give a damn about Putin's activities and of course nobody in the middle east with the exception of Israel cares about anything. If the powers to be in the USA really wanted to do good for the USA they would back away from those who want war and side with those who don't like Israel and Japan to name two countries. Let Putin commit to the middle east and after 10 years or so he will come to realize what those who proceeded him in power in Russia found out when they went into Afghanistan, and what the USA powers to be should be aware of today, as it has been more than 10 years for us. As Ayn Rand has explained those who we chose to lead us do not give a damn about those who they want to fight not for us but for them so they can feel good about saving us in their minds from immediate danger. Yes it is all about the money and that is what rules.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
    I'll politely disagree. Obama isn't a moron. His policies appear moronic until you realize that he opposes the goal of a free America. He actively is working to destroy this great nation by any and all means.

    Why does he engage in these "kinetic military actions"? Because through them he can deplete our arsenals of weapons and force changes upon our military through social policy. Remember, he is the Commander-in-Chief, but its much more difficult to issue directives without an actual conflict to justify them. He has already said that he wants a private army that answers only to him. That army would be in direct conflict with the US Armed Forces who take an oath to protect the Constitution - not the President. Obama's actions are to demoralize our own armed forces and discourage patriotic Americans from joining the armed forces - debilitating them. He knows that's far more effective than simply reducing funding - though he has done that as well.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 3 months ago
      0 is a moron; he is a puppet. He is incapable of thinking. It is those who actually rule the country that pull the strings. He will be gone but a change back will just not happen.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 3 months ago
    I see a lot of reference to Americans playing checkers, while the Russians are playing chess. I don't consider checkers a quintessential American game so much as poker. I think Reagan understood the principles of poker very well, and it kept the Russian chess players off balance. Maybe we should look to see which candidates are seasoned poker players?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
    When Obama is no longer president, and history condemns him, especially for what passes as a foreign policy, he will proudly point to his good intentions and the lefties will all say that is what really counts. He meant well, as they wander through the rubble of the result of his unbelievably stupid policies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 3 months ago
      Herb,
      If they let him do what we have seen what makes you think they will acknowledge that his policies were unbelievably stupdi; which they are?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
        You misunderstand me. The libs will say that his good intentions offset the results of his policies and they defend him even as they wander through the results of his failures. They seem to think that intentions are what counts and not results. Under that kind of thinking, you can write off the greatest of atrocities.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 3 months ago
          and even my mom used to remind me...
          "The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions.' "

          Thanks, mom!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
            She must have met a lot of libs.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 3 months ago
              Y'know, I don't think I ever thought much about that before... Thanks, Herb!

              Mom taught me to save money, stay out of debt and pay off my home mortgage as quickly as possible... Not exactly "Lib Material," there, I'd say...

              On the other hand, one time I muttered "Nixon is a crook!" and she chastised me, saying "How can you Say That... He's Our President!"

              I replied, "Yes, he IS our current President, AND he IS a crook."

              She confused the office with the office-holder. Even in my blossoming teen years I could differentiate between the two concepts.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
                The values she taught you are gold. She wasn't the only one fooled by Nixon.. And by the way, all the "terrible" stuff attributed to Tricky Dick pales in comparison to the outright traitorous horrors imposed on us by Obama and Hillary.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
                  But it wasn't Nixon's War. Nor Kennedy's nor Eisenhower's.

                  LBJ gets all the blame for that one.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
                    JFK had a hand in it as well.
                    Don't get me started.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
                      No but I'll finish it. Eisenhower send some exploratory initial training teams to see if it was feasible to help out the French. Dien Bien Phu and their exit happened. Advisory and training teams were in country under Kennedy. He ordered their removal. He was assassinated. LBJ took over and manufactured the Tonkin Gulf Crisis and that was when we got involved big time. It was all about money. Johnson was bounced and that gave us Nixon but it was Johnson's War and his legacy. Nixon had his own sins to answer for. That gave us Carter so three reasons to despise Lyndon Butcher Johnson. Kennedy by the way was a fiscal conservative although liberal in other areas. The rest was Johnson's dime.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
                        Thanks for the history lesson.
                        LBJ was the consummate politician that gave politicians a bad name. Plus, the bastard picked up his beagles by the ears.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
                          It's easier when you were there and lives through three Presidents and then got involved directly. Statements such as Nixons War or there was no spitting on soldiers in the airports, Nixon wasn't a crook do have a value in identifying the bias of the speaker or writer. The funniest one is Clinton balanced the budget and had a surplus. Worse than that is Democrats are the party of peace. That's not really funny. It's sad.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
    The world has a re-occurring faulty view of the USA depending on who or whom is in office. The view is shared by the liberal leftists except when they are building their own protective echelon.

    It is true the largest most experienced military in the world is useless without the will to use it. When it's sent to do some job of military work and not supported the lack of will is even more evident. That's the operating method of the side that claims one sort of victory in numbers of US War Dead (since WWII) 18 to 1 as compared to the formerly independent Republicans in 'wars the at each have started.

    But here's the part they forget. Given the right leadership and the support of the country our 'not very peaceful and very warlike nation' wins wars and reduces casualties in short order.

    It's being sent out there by the turncoats who vote for something then join the other side that causes the long term problems.

    And I don't want to hear that 'we were lied to garbage.' Two thirds of WMD were in fact found. The rest of the reasons stated for going into Iraq in fact existed. The only fact that counts is the left once again joined the other side after voting to send us to war., The rest is BS.

    In truth ...The nation itself has no will besides starting a game and finding the reset button doesn't work. Think about it are you worth fighting for?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 9 years, 3 months ago
    I have to give Putin credit that he is smarter Obama. Instead of using the word: disassembled, Disemboweled would be better. I'm beginning to wonder whether Obama's credentials are for real. Like the College or University he went to or if he really was a Rhoades Scholar. Maybe he has been smoking the Maryjane cigarettes.
    I bet Putin out maneuvered Obama real good!
    Now, I wonder if the Chinese used Sun Su strategies to play on Obama.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 9 years, 3 months ago
    If the choice is only between two dictatorships, why
    can't we just stay out of it? If a country attacks us
    (or any ally such as Israel), that is one thing. But
    we need to get rid of this welfare state, have a good
    economy, treat our military forces right, and make ourselves strong.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 3 months ago
      Robbing Peter and paying Paul will ALWAYS get the wholehearted support of "Pauls" everywhere.

      Hence: inevitable decay into welfare state as long as everyone's vote is equal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 4 months ago
    "The unipolar dream should have died with the Vietnam war, but it was resurrected with the collapse of the Soviet Union."
    It didn't die. It just got sick. It was called the Vietnam Syndrome. There was a full recovery, and it's back to looking for dragons to slay.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 3 months ago
    I think we are getting to what we can call the "Amazon Moment".. when we stop re-investing in infrastructure, influence, and expansion and monetize the empire... Amazon, while generally always losing money, only needs/needed to stop inventing new business lines and technologies to convert their enormous revenue to profit.

    If Syria runs amok, do we really care? Terrorists are like whackamo... kill one, and 2 more pop up it seems like. Trump is right, seal the border and let the jihadis fight it out, then figure out what is left after the carnage. Maybe airdrop some whiskey, hookers, and guns into the combat zone to fuel the disarray. (Muslim men will always partake if no one is looking it seems like).

    You start that by pulling the military forces defending us closer to home (our hemisphere), focus on the enormous security problems we already have here in Central America, stabilize that region and start building their economies, which will in turn amp ours up and reduce our illegal immigration woes.

    Reduce the military presence in the Middle East to basically an expeditionary force... having overwhelming military power in the area has done nothing to tip the balance in our favor, but keep some tactical nukes on standby to re-open a closed Suez Canal, etc.. We probably have some ongoing commitments in Afghanistan to rebuild them, but I think we're done in Iraq. They can figure it out from here.

    Close our bases overseas and return them to the host governments... we really don't need them, with the exception of maybe Yakota, Diego Garcia, Wake, Incirlik, Germany, Aviano, and a few other key locations that forward deploy logistics in the event of another major conflict and stage reconnaissance overflights, the rest is just outdated. The hosting allies can use it as an excuse to rebuild their own national defense and pick up that large ticket item themselves... and they can choose between Bernie-style free PhD's and national healthcare and dental, or defending against the hoards.

    Expand and modernize the Navy and Air Force - between our satellite espionage systems, and a very mobile and lethal military, we really don't need much else. The military should resemble what the Russians have as a strategy, but not the pile of rusted junk that they use. Make very real cuts and elimination of bases and weapons systems that are obsolete to the new strategy.

    Replace the worldwide military infrastructure with lower taxes, business incentives, industrial capacity, and 'monetize' the empire. Put severe limits on public welfare, "phony disability" payments for life, and curtail spending on social programs (a roaring economy doesn't need subsidies). Roll the revenues forward to reduce the national debt clock, and get the numbers running in the right direction.

    Greater industrial capacity means we don't necessarily need such a large standing army, a big case for a standing army is the argument that we can't readily replace pieces lost quickly on battlefield in a major conflict. Rather than housing the equipment, it's support and maintenance forces, bases to keep it in, and soldiers to operate it, just build the capacity to build more in a hurry.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 9 years, 3 months ago
      Since welfare is unsustainable, it's time for a homestead act 2.0, in which each welfare family gets 40 acres of government land (there's plenty of it available), adequate training in agriculture, some equipment, a basic house, and a 5 year sunset, after which the welfare recipients are on their own. Any aid they get after that will be private charity, with the government forever out of the charity business. As for foreign affairs, especially the mideast debacle, arm the Kurds, Christians, Yazidis, Israelis, Jordanians and Egyptians to the teeth, create an alliance around that grouping, and call it a day, with American boots on the ground only coming into play if a force large enough to defeat them attacks them. Get Japan and Korea to work together on their mutual security, with the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and others joining in, again, with American boots on the ground only in the case of a major assault. As for the rest of the world, only work with those who are ready, willing and able to implement a capitalist, democratic/republican type of system; ignore the rest. Let our prosperity and freedom be the drawing card, and nothing else.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 3 months ago
        The problem with relying on the typical Middle Easterner to make an alliance 'doable' is their work ethic... or lack thereof... They want to fight a little in the morning after breakfast & prayers... then go pray for a while in the afternoon, and pretty much leave the front and go home in the afternoon/evening. The Jihadis have a lot more resolve than that, so they tend to keep winning.

        There was no reason that the Iraqi army should have struggled with American arms/equipment/artillery, but they did, they probably never fired a shop and just walked home.

        For the most part, culturally, all of them are like that. If we're not willing to be constantly at war "for them", it may as well resolve itself whether or not we like the outcome.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo