Chuck Hagel Fact Sheet

[Molon Labe]

Honestly this was an argument that became irrelevant 4 years ago, the enemy controls our government now.

4? I'd argue it's been about 20 years. I've always viewed the Obama presidency as one step furthering the failures of Bushy's Pseudo conservatism. However, The first idiot to start jettisoning descent FP wonks in favor of some "grand" design on the third world was Clinton. Then Bushy. Obama's just followed in thier footsteps. It was inevitable that when you give the guy you like a pass for 8 years the next guys gonna think he can too.

[Odysseus]

You describe a culture war, not a shooting war. You cannot defeat a culture war by military means. See war on drugs, war on poverty, war on homeless, and any other liberal ignoramous endeavor out there. ( I wonder why conservatives use this for what suites them, when it is clearly a fallacy of the left)

No, I'm describing an ideological war, like the Cold War, but unlike communism, Islamist imperialism has been around since the seventh century. Hitler's thousand year Reich barely made it into adolescence, and the workers' paradise lasted about as long as my grandparents, but Islam has been inspiring conquests for 1400 years, and the latest wave is picking up steam at a faster rate than any of the previous ones.

There is NO middle eastern nation that rises to the level of a world military power threat of the level of the USSR, Nazi Germany or the modern states of China, or Germany. You have made that argument for years and it still rings hollow. Your fear of bugaboos is tiring.

In 1932, there were several European countries that were capable of projecting power around the world, but Germany wasn't one of them. In fact, it was a ruined, impoverished state, demilitarized and utterly incapable of challenging the French and British empires. In 1941, Germany controlled all of Europe and threatened England. Your refusal to look at history is infuriating.

There are few respected people in International Relations that actually beleive the military threat is on that level, save for the idiots at PNAC. Problem is that no one in charge of US foreign policy actually listens to any of the best and brightest in this subject area.

And NO, not every American believes that Israel and the US completely "share" a common interest. Actually, most scholars of US securtity (ones who are ignored by the stupid Federal Government) actually believe that our security interests are hampered and made worse by this. So it is not as true as you make it.

In the 1930s, Churchill was an object of ridicule and derision, officially censored and written out of polite society because of his views of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. He also happened to be right.

I can't help you with your gator issue. You're tendancy to bent out of shape over what he did to you creeps into alot of conversations when someone speaks of policy disagreements regarding this subject, and it tends to cloud your view.

Gator routinely resorted to personal attacks and profanity when he didn't have rational arguments. Your constant refrain about kissing the asses of William Kristol and PNAC sound just like his diatribes about "filthy Israelis". If you don't like the comparison, don't adopt the behavior.

I stated that Hagel won't cow (kiss ass) to a bunch of third rate Foreign policy morons PNAC. You brought "The JOOOS" into it.

No, Hagel did, when he talked about a fictitious "Jewish lobby" that intimidates congress into adopting policies that they would otherwise not support. You keep avoiding addressing that point.

I'm afraid that anyone who agrees with a Senator who says he disagrees with the poltics of Kristol doesn't make them "anti-semite", anymore than disagreeing with Obama makes them racist of blacks or disagreement with US FP regarding Korea, makes one racist of Asians.

Hagel didn't say anything about Kristol, that's your obsession, but he has said a lot about Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other enemies of the US, all of it wrong.

Isreali government itself has stated the US should get out of the way and let them handle thier own problems. Sounds like good advice. Hagel has suggested nothing any different.

No, but he's also sided with Israel's (and our) enemies at every opportunity. Even you must find Hamas and Hezbollah to be less than savory.

Probably because taking the time to sign "symbolic" pieces of legislation is a waste of time, stupid, and pointless? That's what Libtards do. Sitting around writing up symbolic condemnations of this or that as if they are doing something. I really could care less about a 13 year old symbolic bill.....but it's a great Red herring if you want to get wrapped around the axel.

And yet, he found time to draft and sign a letter to Obama in 2009, demanding that he engage in direct talks with Hamas, whose charter demands the death of all Jews in the world, not just Israel. He can't be bothered to sign a symbolic letter against anti-Semitism, but he can write a letter on behalf of anti-Semites.

There's no logic in the belief that he harbors ill will to Jews at all. http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/07/ch...n-israel-iran/

Backpedaling denials don't impress me. The rest of his record speaks for itself.

More propaganda Ody? By definition Realist poltics does not = isolationism.

You're the only one that is claiming that Hagel is a realist, but since you are making the claim, I'd like you to present a definition of Realism as you see it, since I don't think that you have a clue what realpolitik is.

I would say wrong on the issues would be men like Kristol who should be dressed in clown suits and run out on a rail for their failures over the last 15 years.

Have you ever actually read any of the position papers from PNAC or is this rage the result of a screwed up Weekly Standard subscription? Seriously, you keep invoking him as the bogeyman, but you don't ever cite any specifics. You sound like a DUmmie going off on Cheney and Halliburton.

Nope it's alive and well. Sure wish it was defunct after the complete and utter failures of it's FP predictions and solutions, but it is not. Those idiots still have influence on American FP and Kristol and his cronies have several other endeavors that get lots of traction. I'll post some if you'd like?

Then, perhaps you can check their website for any content added after 2007? Because that's the last time anyone wrote anything under their auspices. Maybe they've gone underground, and are secretly running the government like the Illuminati, the Freemasons or the guys who burn crop circles in Area 51.

Lol. So let me see if I get this argument straight? You believe Machiavelian politics is the method best used in modern IR? The man who wrote The Prince, which is the foundation of every modern dictator in the last 200 years is the basis for which I should understand the modern nation state relationship? Ha... Ha... Ha....

Bullshit.

Written like someone who's never actually read Machiavelli. He was a supporter of republican governments, and served as the head of the city defenses for the Florentine Republic. His main point in the Prince is that a leader must be able to act decisively and not be constrained by abstractions when survival is on the line. This is not a call to abandon any moral compass, but rather an explanation of the proper place for subterfuge and force in government. He despised the courtiers who sought to substitute words for actions when actions were required, and who believed that diplomacy alone could prevent war. If you want a more explicit example of his democratic leanings, read his Discourses on Livy, but read something that he actually wrote before you dismiss him.

I studied International relations in college exclusively. I'm not calling myself an expert, but I'm supremely confidant I can hold my own in discussing the frameworks of international politics and what has been effective and what has not. You're going to have to do better than what is essentially the "nuh uh" argument.

Seriously? Did you sleep through your classes or something? You really come off as staggeringly ignorant on the history of international relations.

The reason the US is in decline is because US policy wonks got influenced in this school in the early 90's and made headroads into US policy positions with clout. Alot of people gott buggered, including me, as I used to believe this garbage, when they read F. Fukuyama's thesis on "The End of History" and it's fouled up the last 20 years with alot of backwards thinking. You get back to me when you've read it, because based on your writings over the years, what you support is not Machiaveli at all in any grand scheme...... It's Fukuyama and his grand theory.

Know thyself Ody. I highly recommend it.

You think that the US is in decline because of PNAC? I'd expect that from an Obama supporter, but only because they'd argue that the lower taxes and strong defense advocated by PNAC meant that the 99% were getting fewer benefits. America is in decline because we are spending borrowed money on social programs that are unsustainable, and because we will end up having to gut our defense capabilities in order to keep up the interest payments. We're in hock, not because of wars, but because of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Stimulus 1 and 2 and the rest of the out of control spending that the so-called "best and brightest" have imposed on us.

Lol. You know, I've never in my life heard someone condemn the most prominant school of IR in the 20th century that was responsible for bringing down the USSR. Kinda funny actually.

You don't espouse the "Rational Actor" theory in IR. As a matter of fact you have rejected one of the axioms of international politics, so therefore you cannot begin to understand what is effective. Your world view on how to handle the ME is based on some wacky version of believing you are Indiana Jones and that the Iranian caliphate is the Thuggees wating for the God Cali to return to take over the World. Once again, what you speak of is the religious culture of the region, not the actual costs and consequences State actors weigh when making decisions.

No, my world view on the Middle East is based on having studied the history of the conflict and done tours there. The religious culture of the region is also the political culture, because Islam, unlike the Thuggee cult, demands the conquest of the entire world. It is a totalitarian political, economic and religious doctrine that goes far beyond the prescriptions of any other religion in the world. The most widely respected guide to Sharia, the Reliance of the Traveler, dictates the conduct of Muslims in literally everything that they do, from personal hygiene to interactions with non-believers.

[Odysseus]

You would fight an invasion of Culture with bombs and bullets. This is ignorance.

No, I would fight it with all of the tools at our disposal, but the first tool is our will to preserve our culture. The second is to make people like you understand that we are in a war, not just of culture, but of bombs and bullets (Iran's nuclear program isn't an abstract expression of faith). The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran are, in one critical way, very much like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, in that they believes that they have a mission to spread their ideology all over the world and destroy anyone who opposes them. John Cornyn summed them up brilliantly in his OP-ED piece in opposition to Hagel, saying, "This is not a government that calculates self-interest the way America does. It is a messianic theocracy intent on exporting its violent Islamist revolution. And if Tehran gets the bomb, we might soon have a nuclear arms race in one of the world's most volatile regions." Remember that phrase, "messianic theocracy." In its own way, that describes the communist and Nazi regimes as well, except that their religions were more secular.

[QUOTE=Molon Labe;546524]If the West....Americans, and Europeans are too stupid to fight for thier own ideals and laws of western culture, then they have lost already. I don't believe that and I don't believe that Islam is superior to Western culture.

And no gun, or Army can change that.

I'm not a Hagel fanboy, nor do I know if he won't simply turn out to be as bad as the rest of them who've been SOD for the last 15 years. But I do know that his nomination and school of thought is a radical departure from the failures. It can't be any worse than the Panetta's, Rumsfeld,s Gates, and Cohen's of late.

No, he's going to be worse, because none of the other SECDEF's saw their mission as the gutting of the DOD and the appeasement of our enemies.

And to end: I don't wish to have any other discussion about this subject based on the subject of this thread, which was basically ad hominem allegations of Anti-Semitism or Godwin's law. If you have a disagreement of the central point that he is not going to be a descent SOD, then speak it. If you cannot come up with a rational arguement based on the central policy disagreements then please don't bother responding to this.

I've come up with rational arguments, but your response was to accuse me of kissing Bill Kristol's ass, and you've got the nerve to accuse me of ad hominem attacks?

You make it too complicated.

Please site one ME nation that could invade and occupy a world power and have air, sea and land power of capabilities of fair or equal capacity.

Today, none. In a few years, however, that is going to change, just as it changed in Europe prior to WWII.

Yes. And there is no nation in the ME who could do that to one another either. When Iraq did so in 90', it miscalculated based on it's communication with the West and the perception of the actions that would be taken.

They are all rational actor states.
Goal setting.....Weight of options......Weight of consequences.......Maximizing profit or position of stability.

There's a wiki article if actually studying the issue in depth is too time consuming. I understand it will be for many.

Except that they are not rational actors, or rather, they are not rational in terms that you understand. Their assumptions are radically different, and their rational weighing of options and consequences is based on their messianic fervor. Iran declared war on us in 1979, and they have never retracted that declaration. They are on the way to developing nuclear weapons with the stated goal of expanding Islam. They see Israel as a proxy of the forces that seek to oppose the spread of the one true faith through Dar al Harb, the house of war. Those forces are the US, otherwise known in Iran as the Great Satan, and our allies, of which Israel is the closest. This is why they are developing missiles that can range the capital cities of Europe, and why they are doing joint naval exercises with Venezuela. They are seeking to initiate the final days, as predicted in the Quran, and Hagel's response is to permit them to develop nuclear arms, make nice with their terrorist proxies (which have murdered hundreds of Americans) and disarm us. That may make sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to anyone else this side of DU.

[Rockntractor]

4? I'd argue it's been about 20 years. I've always viewed the Obama presidency as one step furthering the failures of Bushy's Pseudo conservatism. However, The first idiot to start jettisoning descent FP wonks in favor of some "grand" design on the third world was Clinton. Then Bushy. Obama's just followed in thier footsteps. It was inevitable that when you give the guy you like a pass for 8 years the next guys gonna think he can too.

The country that you imagine has never existed anywhere at anytime, I swear some of you Libertarians live in a damn fantasy world, there has never nor will there ever be a perfect period of United states government nor will there ever be a perfect candidate or one even close to your fantasy for that matter.

[Molon Labe]

The country that you imagine has never existed anywhere at anytime, I swear some of you Libertarians live in a damn fantasy world, there has never nor will there ever be a perfect period of United states government nor will there ever be a perfect candidate or one even close to your fantasy for that matter.

Sure it has. You tell me who resembles the Washington's, Jefferson's, Paine's, and Adams of our day.

Romney?, McCain?, Rubio?, Ryan?, Palin? Ho ho...


Maybe it's you that has settled for low standards in your politicians because you think you have too. But don't make it someone else's problem because you keep eating your "shit sandwhich" and became complacent along the way.
Hayek said that the largest group of people in society are the ones with low standards. He's right.

In NO WAY do the people we have running our government represent the BEST this country has to offer.

[Rockntractor]

Sure it has. You tell me who resembles the Washington's, Jefferson's, Paine's, and Adams of our day.

Had you been born back then you would most likely have opposed them, you are a purist of sorts, unfortunately you have never been able to put your finger on exactly what that purity is, you just know that it somehow emanates from yourself.

[Molon Labe]

Had you been born back then you would most likely have opposed them, you are a purist of sorts, unfortunately you have never been able to put your finger on exactly what that purity is, you just know that it somehow emanates from yourself.

I'm supremely confidant I know what "purity" is. How about following the damn constitution and actually voting for smaller government for once?

Basically you wish me to follow this playbook:

1. Settle for Imbeciles

2. Blame those with standards that it's all their fault rather than the "Imbeciles" (See #1)

3. Enjoy "Nothing ever Changes" coupled with "Things getting Worse". (MMM! Yummy shit sandwhich)

[Odysseus]

I'm supremely confidant I know what "purity" is. How about following the damn constitution and actually voting for smaller government for once?

Basically you wish me to follow this playbook:

1. Settle for Imbeciles

2. Blame those with standards that it's all their fault rather than the "Imbeciles" (See #1)

3. Enjoy "Nothing ever Changes" coupled with "Things getting Worse". (MMM! Yummy shit sandwhich)

The problem is that you assume that anyone who doesn't share every one of your positions is an imbecile. Romney isn't stupid, he simply has a different take on some issues. He wasn't a perfect candidate, but he was certainly better than the only viable alternative. I wonder if even Reagan would make your cut today.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Molon Labe]

The problem is that you assume that anyone who doesn't share every one of your positions is an imbecile. Romney isn't stupid, he simply has a different take on some issues. He wasn't a perfect candidate, but he was certainly better than the only viable alternative. I wonder if even Reagan would make your cut today.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

He sure as hell would make my cut.

Good grief.. You people who would compare Romney to Reagan are delusional.

The guy who implemented a gun ban
The guy who wrote the Blueprint to Obama care.
The guy who ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy.

Yes...Romney's stupid.

[Rockntractor]

The problem is that you assume that anyone who doesn't share every one of your positions is an imbecile. Romney isn't stupid, he simply has a different take on some issues. He wasn't a perfect candidate, but he was certainly better than the only viable alternative. I wonder if even Reagan would make your cut today.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Reagan is a good parallel, he had both houses of congress against him and got stopped on much that he wanted to do and had to compromise often, yet Romney in the same situation as governor was given no passes whatsoever, he was supposed to somehow overpower them all and be the super conservative. Without both houses being Democrat there would never have been the so called "Romney care" it was Massachusetts, wake up and smell the fucking coffee Paulbots.