Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘U.S. Military’ Category

Read Full Post »

When you’re a sniveling coward like Barack Hubris Obama, everybody in the neighborhood wants to take a shot at you.

As my late father put it, “There’s no substitute for courage, and brave men prefer death over cowardice.” Obama is not a brave man, or even a man, by any stretch of the imagination.

– – –

From WND:

Russia threatens to retaliate against U.S. military
Warns airspace over Syria under protection of Moscow

Russian Air Force Sukhoi Su-34

Russian Air Force Sukhoi Su-34

Tel Aviv – Russia has delivered a behind-the-scenes threat to retaliate if airstrikes carried out by the U.S. or its allies target the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Middle Eastern security officials told WND.

The security officials said Russia complained Sunday in quiet talks with United Nations representatives that the Obama administration’s current aerial campaign against Islamic State fighters in Syria is a violation of international agreements regarding control of Syrian airspace.

The officials said Russia warned it could potentially retaliate if U.S. or Arab airstrikes go beyond targeting Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, and instead bomb any Syrian regime targets.

The officials told WND they do not have any information about the seriousness of the Russian threat or whether Moscow meant it would retaliate directly or aid Assad’s air force in a military response.

The officials said Russian diplomats asserted terms regarding Syrian airspace were agreed upon last September as part of a sweeping deal to disarm Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons by the middle of 2014.

At the time, the international community feared Assad could target chemical weapons inspectors acting in Syria. That fear in part lead to a deal in which Moscow says it was provided with significant responsibility over the skies of Syria, purportedly to insure against Assad’s air force acting against the international disarmament effort.

The officials further said that both the Russia and Iranian militaries are on heightened alert amid the ongoing situation in Syria.

On Saturday, U.S.-led coalition warplanes for the first time reportedly struck ISIS targets in Syria near the Turkish border as well as positions in the country’s east, according to activists and a Kurdish officials speaking to the Associated Press.

Nawaf Khalil, a spokesman for Syria’s Kurdish Democratic Union Party, or PYD, told the AP the strikes targeted Islamic State positions near the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani.

U.S.-coalition strikes also reportedly targeted a local ISIS headquarters in the northern Syrian town of Tel Abyad along the Turkish border, setting an oil refinery ablaze.

“Our building was shaking and we saw fire, some 60 meters (65 yards) high, coming from the refinery,” local businessman Mehmet Ozer told Time Magazine.

Time reported the strikes were also confirmed by the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and were reported by Turkey’s Dogan news agency.

– – –

My reply to Russia would be, “Bring it on, bitches! Better bring your ‘A’ game.”

Obama will likely invite Putin and company to a cookout on the white house lawn and sing a few bars of Kumbaya as Michelle plays Putin’s skin flute.

Read Full Post »

U.S. Cavalry Scouts - Iraq

U.S. Cavalry Scouts – Iraq

The blame game is being played over failure in Iraq

By Victor Davis Hanson | San Jose Mercury News | 26 June 2014

The blame game mostly fingers incompetent Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Or is Barack Obama culpable for pulling out all American troops monitoring the success of the 2007-08 surge?

Some still blame George W. Bush for going into Iraq in 2003 in the first place to remove Saddam Hussein.

One can blame almost anyone, but one must not invent facts to support an argument.
Do we remember that Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that supported regime change in Iraq? He gave an eloquent speech on the dangers of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

In 2002, both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass a resolution authorizing the removal of Saddam Hussein by force. Senators such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Harry Reid offered moving arguments on the Senate floor why we should depose Saddam in a post-9/11 climate.

Democratic stalwarts such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Rep. Nancy Pelosi lectured us about the dangers of Saddam’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. They drew on the same classified domestic and foreign intelligence reports that had led Bush to call for Saddam’s forcible removal.

The Bush administration, like members of Congress, underestimated the costs of the war and erred in focusing almost exclusively on Saddam’s supposed stockpiles of weapons. But otherwise, the war was legally authorized on 23 writs. Most of them had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were unaffected by the later mysterious absence of such weapons — which is all the more mysterious given that troves of WMD have turned up in nearby Syria and more recently in Iraqi bunkers overrun by Islamic militants.

Legally, the U.S. went to war against Saddam because he had done things such as commit genocide against the Kurds, Shiites and the Marsh Arabs, and attacked four of his neighbors. He had tried to arrange the assassination of a former U.S. president, George H.W. Bush. He had paid bounties for suicide bombers on the West Bank and was harboring the worst of global terrorists.

A number of prominent columnists, right and left — from George Will, David Brooks and William F. Buckley to Fareed Zakaria, David Ignatius and Thomas Friedman — supported Saddam’s forcible removal. When his statue fell in 2003, most polls showed that more than 70 percent of Americans agreed with the war.

What changed public opinion and caused radical about-faces among the war’s most ardent supporters were the subsequent postwar violence and insurgency between 2004 and 2007, and the concurrent domestic elections and rising antiwar movement. Thousands of American troops were killed or wounded in mostly failed efforts to stem the Sunni-Shiite savagery.

The 2007-08 surge engineered by Gen. David Petraeus ended much of the violence. By Obama’s second year in office, American fatalities had been reduced to far less than the monthly accident rate in the U.S. military. “An extraordinary achievement” Obama said of the “stable” and “self-reliant” Iraq that he inherited — and left.

Prior to our invasion, the Kurds were a persecuted people who had been gassed, slaughtered and robbed of all rights by Saddam. In contrast, today a [semi-autonomous] Kurdistan is a free-market, consensual society of tolerance that, along with Israel, is one of the few humane places in the Middle East.

Launching a costly campaign to remove Saddam may or may not have been a wise move. But it is historically inaccurate to suggest that the Iraq War was cooked up by George W. Bush alone — or that it did not do enormous damage to al-Qaida, bring salvation for the Kurds, and by 2009 provide a rare chance for the now-bickering Iraqis to make something out of what Saddam had tried to destroy.

Victor Davis Hanson is a syndicated columnist.

Read Full Post »

From the New York Post

When John Kennedy addressed West Point’s Class of 1962, he told them the burden of defending freedom “will require more from you than ever before in our history.”

WestPointThe nature of war had changed, said the young president, but this only increased America’s need for military officers of character, judgment and ability.

How different from Barack Obama’s adolescent address Wednesday. Here the long gray line was reduced to a backdrop for a president shouting to the world: I’m not the weakling you think!

His critics, he said, have no policy beyond invading other countries. This accusation was a petulant allusion to his predecessor. And he repeated it several times:

“A strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is ­naïve and unsustainable.”

“[Not] every problem has a military ­solution.”

“[My critics] think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.”

The truth is: No one says any such thing.

No one argued for US troops in Syria; the argument was for arming democrats fighting Bashar al-Assad to keep al Qaeda from taking the lead.

No one argued for boots on the ground in Ukraine, either, though critics are pushing for missile defense for our East European allies. And no one is looking to invade Iran, much as people do worry Tehran is using talks to buy time to develop its nukes.

On Wednesday, our commander-in-chief stood before some of America’s most selfless men and women. It was an opportunity to inspire these young West Pointers with a speech about national security — and their vital role in a dangerous world.

Instead he opted for a campaign speech once again contrasting his own brilliance with a childish caricature of his critics.

Read Full Post »

Homeland_Sec_AR-15s

And what about Homeland Security?

TMQ2 Reader feedback:

What will the Army do if called to fight armed civilians in U.S. streets?

The following is an email received by a friend from a 30 year Navy chief who seems to have his fingers into everything. I do question who this actually came from but, all I ask you to do is read it and think about what is stated in the piece. While some of you may dismiss it, remember, these old retired military guys have sources you will never have:

“When I asked my colleague, an Army Colonel, why he thinks Obama is doing this, the reply I received from this life-long soldier and Army leader shocked me.

“Paraphrasing him, this is what he told me in a nutshell.

“He said most branches of the service routinely engage in war games and come up with strategies and tactics on how to handle every type of military conflict and scenario that can be imagined. One of the big new battle scenarios being actively discussed in the military recently is how to handle civil unrest in the U.S. and fighting in the streets. What will the Army do if called in to fight armed civilians in the streets of the United States? How will that urban warfare be conducted? Will troops be able to fire upon other American citizens when they have taken an oath to protect American citizens?

“He said many in the military are discussing the very real possibility that Obama will attempt to stay in office beyond two terms. It’s speculated that Obama will do this by declaring a state of martial law. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Veterans Day 2013

Read Full Post »

happy birthday marine corps

A message from the Commandant (Please pay special attention to the final paragraph, 2nd sentence!)

And  a toast from MI to all of us:

“Here’s health to you and to our Corps.

Which we are proud to serve;

In many a strife we’ve fought for life

And never lost our nerve;

If the Army and the Navy

Ever look on Heaven’s scenes;

They will find the streets are guarded

By United States Marines.”

“Oorah!!”

Semper Fidelis!

Read Full Post »

By my last count, he has purged 9 generals and almost 200  junior officers.

Martial law coming soon!

Socialism (Communism) and martial law are just around the corner!

Also read:

Read Full Post »

To: Lance, Marshal, Lawrence, Shlomo, et al

By Aulddog

I’ve been motivated by recent events within DoD to write this piece, after reading yet another article on MSNBC (I ought’a stop doing that—it only hurts, and not in a good way) on yet ANOTHER general getting canned for something. Interestingly enough, the last few generals to get the hammer have been in charge of nuclear assets:

—MGEN Michael Carey—the most recent chop—was relieved for personal misbehavior. Carey was the head of 20th Air Force, responsible for roughly 450 nuclear ICBMs at multiple locations US-wide. The nature of the personal misbehavior was not specified. (Pay attention to that last part—I’ll bring it up again later. *foot stamp*)

—VADM Tim Giardina was demoted from three-star to two-star and relieved of his command duties. Giardina was the deputy for nuclear forces at USSTRATCOM (U.S. Strategic Command, for you non-military types). The charges were—again—unspecified, although gambling was alleged in the mix.

These are just the most recent. It’s scary that the nuke guys are getting leveled now, especially when you factor in the reports that Obama’s cronies are relocating nuclear weapons to the east coast, without apparent justification or reason.

Looking back, MGEN Stanley McChrystal was among the first to go down in the early years of the Obama regime, after a Rolling Stone (Rolling Stoned?) reporter used his access to McChrystal to do a hatchet piece. The comparisons between this situation and Truman’s relieving MacArthur are obvious…Truman was a Democrat too. All told, this country’s probably lost about a dozen generals in high-ranking positions since Obama took office. Lance may be able to offer a more specific list (another *foot stamp*…we could use names here.)

For someone like me who’s a student of history, this is all-too-scarily similar to something I’ve seen before. (more…)

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: