re: "Nuke the News: Iowa!"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") demonstrated his proven knack for humor.

Money quote(s):

"The Pentagon is abandoning the idea they should be able to wage two wars at once. So if we’re already in one war and you try to war against us, you’re going to be put on hold."

1/4

re: "Random Thoughts"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") cracks me up.

Money quote(s):

"Basically everything bad the left pretended the Tea Party was is what Occupy Wall Street actually is. That’s why they call it “projection.”"

Did anyone actually believe that noise?

"Did we just start another war?

Okay, we’re not starting another war, we’re joining in a war someone else started. We’re just being neighborly."

Frank was talking about Libya, IIRC.

"We’re sending the troops in an advisor status? Usually our troops are advising the enemy to be dead."

Dead or surrendered. Even the Grand Fenwickians understood that much.

(And that about wraps it up.)

10/17

re: "Nuke the News: Kill the Aliens Before They Kill Us"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") is for honesty.

Money quote(s):

"Isn’t staying staying in the country illegally a crime, hence the term “illegal”? I don’t know.

I wish the pro-illegal immigration crowd would be honest and just argue for open borders with no checks on anyone instead of this “we’ll keep saying its a crime and never enforce it” position. And that’s the main thing about the pro-illegal immigration people: Dishonesty. The way they’re always trying to conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration shows they know they have an untenable position and want to do anything they can to avoid dealing with it head on. That’s why we have to keep the pressure on. We can’t give up America’s sovereignty just because some people think they have a great position to win votes."

CAA is a big fan of legal immigration and legal immigrants. Mainly because they, by definition, exhibit law-abiding behavior in the course of immigration to the U.S. What's not to like about that?

CAA is not professionally unaware of the inefficiencies and burdensome requirements incorporated into the processes and system (and CAA uses that term somewhat loosely) through which legal immigrants must navigate. But CAA is also professionally aware of the many frauds and other abuses those many obstacles are intended to discourage and prevent.

8/19

re: "Random Thoughts"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") managed a coherent, if random, thought.

Money quote(s):

"Mosques seems like a separate issue from religious freedom because you don’t usually worry about churches being full of terrorists. But they’re not. Just wish we had a bit more extremism intolerance when it came to Islam. Hurts good Muslims when we tolerate bad. Like the guys behind the Ground Zero mosque; they had enough extremism links that they should have been shunned from polite society."

7/18

re: "Nuke the News: The Only Thing Obama Stimulated Was… MURDER!"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") commented on consular notification.

Money quote(s):

"Didn’t really get this whole Humberto Leal thing. If one of our citizens went to another country and raped and murdered someone, could you see America making a big stink about the guy’s rights? I mean, no one is saying the guy is innocent, but we’re supposed to care after what he’s done that he didn’t get to talk to a consulate? What was the consulate going to say to him? I hope it would be, “DON’T RAPE AND MURDER PEOPLE!” And when we see the Mexican government doing all they can to help rapists and murderers, it’s not really great PR for the country. They really want to spend more time highlighting the non-rapists and non-murderers. Still, just before dying from lethal injection, Leal shouted, “Viva Mexico!” So they won over one guy." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

We have Americans in the jails of every country to which I've been posted as a foreign service officer. And, in every one of them, at least one of them was in jail for murder (if not rape).

We check on them as per the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and we do so at least quarterly as per our own laws and regulations.

re: "I Guess We’re Done with Afghanistan"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") examines the menu of strategies, as only he can.

Money quote(s):

"So I guess we’re kinda leaving Afghanistan now. They’ll be withdrawing 30,000 troops in mission “Reelect Obama”. So did we win? I never understand these modern conflicts. Seems like it would be so much easier if we just trashed a country and left and declared victory; it’s this trying to help the country out that’s so complicated and makes it hard to tell when you win.

Except, with how the Taliban sheltered al Qaeda, shouldn’t the win conditions be the total extinction of the Taliban? Shouldn’t they be gone forever without even the possibility of them being genetically resurrected and having rocket launchers put on them?"

Aside from the issue of grafting rocket launchers onto Taliban clones (sort of a recurring theme or running joke at IMAO), this goes straight to the heart of a basic question of strategy: punitive expedition vs. defeat & reconstruction.

"(M)aybe this is part of that strategy. We’ll be all like, “We’re leaving Afghanistan now. Bye bye. Hope the Taliban don’t come back, but if they do, not our problem.” Then the Taliban will run in and be like, “Yay! We’ve chased out the Americans! The country is ours again!” Then the Americans troops will be like, “Ha! We were just hiding behind the bushes! Now we kill you! BANG BANG BANG!”

That’s strategery; I don’t know if Obama is up for something like that. That would take the mindset of winning, and the Democrats don’t really seem to have that. Like they kept complaining about Iraq taking away focus from Afghanistan, but as soon as focus went back to that country, all they wanted was to get out."

I guess I'd call this proposed strategy the "double-reverse whack-a-mole." It's a bit more oblique than most American military strategies tend to be, and suffers the serious drawback of relying on future leaders and commanders to actually implement it rather than stopping after the getting-run-out-of-Dodge phase of the plan.

"(W)hat exactly are our goals in the Middle East anyway? Do we really expect there to eventually be another country there than Israel that doesn’t act like it’s run by barbaric three-year-olds? I guess it could happen, but I think we’d have to be a stronger example than a country that just comes in and occupies until it decides it’s bored of it."

Whatever one thinks of this characterization of the nations formerly part of the Persian or Roman civilizations, the second point about setting examples sort of stings a little bit. Wonder why that is?

re: "Nuke the News: Unpopular in the Arab World"

As always, Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") summarized the news like no one else can.

Money quote(s):

"Maybe if our credit gets low enough, no one will lend us money anymore. Then we’ll finally have to buckle down balance our budget. Though, more likely, we’ll just declare bankruptcy. Oh, selling off our assets is going to be painful; I always liked Hawaii." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"(H)ard to get worried over us being unpopular in the Arab world. It’s if we’re suddenly really popular there, then we should get worried. “Hmm… we have 90% popularity in the Arab world… OH NO! DID WE ACCIDENTALLY DO A HOLOCAUST?!!!” "

Impossible to argue with iron-clad logic like that, so why try?

re: "Let’s Talk Amnesty Again"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") presents the downside of immigration reform attempts.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hy bring up amnesty for illegal immigrants now? And you just know it’s a loser issue in how dishonest people excusing illegal immigration are. For one, they always try to group in illegal immigration with legal immigration since illegal immigration is pretty indefensible by itself. And the people for amnesty are always so schizophrenic on whether illegal immigration is a bad thing in the first place. Like Obama is proudly making the ridiculous claim that the border fence has been completed — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants is a good thing — but then wants us to pass amnesty — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants isn’t a big deal. Which is it? And the amnesty people are never clear on what their endgame is. Do they want to get rid of borders? Do they want to keep a broken system they can demagogue about? Who knows. No wonder amnesty people are always turning to the racist charge since a coherent argument isn’t an option.

I think people would have a lot more sympathy, though, for illegal immigrants if they were more sorry about it. Like if they all were like, “We’re really sorry to do this, but you have to understand how much Mexico sucks and how nice your country is. You wouldn’t want to live in Mexico.” But instead illegal immigrants are all indignant we even care about this and think they’re owed citizenship." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

A little bit of remorse would go a long way in this regard, rather than ahistorical claims that they didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed them.

re: "Let’s Talk Amnesty Again"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") speaks frankly (as only he can) about illegal immigration and amnesty.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hy bring up amnesty for illegal immigrants now? And you just know it’s a loser issue in how dishonest people excusing illegal immigration are. For one, they always try to group in illegal immigration with legal immigration since illegal immigration is pretty indefensible by itself. And the people for amnesty are always so schizophrenic on whether illegal immigration is a bad thing in the first place. Like Obama is proudly making the ridiculous claim that the border fence has been completed — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants is a good thing — but then wants us to pass amnesty — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants isn’t a big deal. Which is it? And the amnesty people are never clear on what their endgame is. Do they want to get rid of borders? Do they want to keep a broken system they can demagogue about? Who knows. No wonder amnesty people are always turning to the racist charge since a coherent argument isn’t an option.

I think people would have a lot more sympathy, though, for illegal immigrants if they were more sorry about it. Like if they all were like, “We’re really sorry to do this, but you have to understand how much Mexico sucks and how nice your country is. You wouldn’t want to live in Mexico.” But instead illegal immigrants are all indignant we even care about this and think they’re owed citizenship. You know, we have plenty of overly-entitled, native-born people I would love to deport, so we don’t need more from out of country." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

re: "A Gutsy Post"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") analyzes the gutsy call.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he left has decided the word for Obama’s is “gutsy.” That’s kind of weird since he made a call that most Americans would have made, so what’s gutsy about it? If you told a regular American, “So, do you want to get Osama or not get Osama?” they would think that’s a trick question. But for Obama, going with the obvious answer was gutsy."

On the face of it, Frank's assessment is valid. But let's drill down a little bit. You see, approving the operation is a little bit more than just deciding to take down UBL. And I'm not even talking about the diplomatic and political repercussions involved in going into Pakistan in order to do it.

A few short decades ago there was this thing called "Desert One." Google it, if you don't already know. The president is of an age, as I am myself, to remember Desert One from late-adolescence/early-adulthood. Desert One was where Operation Eagle Claw went wholly pear-shaped and the predecessors of what became "Delta Force" took a number of casualties. And that was before they'd even gotten to their objective in Tehran.

So there are consequences to be considered. Missions are not always assured of success, even if things don't go disasterously wrong (as they did at Desert One); what if the intelligence is wrong? What if UBL picks that particular night to sleep over at a friend's house? The list of what-ifs and what-could-go-wrongs is limited only by the imagination.

So I'm un-troubled, upon reflection, by those who give props to the commander-in-chief for making a "gutsy" call. The call was his to make, he made it, and it went well for the troops who executed it, went well for the president, and went quite badly for UBL.

"Obama will get a little bit of a bounce and deservedly so for taking out Osama, but I wouldn’t expect too much of it."

re: "What If the ObamaCare Mandate Isn’t Struck Down?"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") worries about Constitutional over-reach by Congress (and the president).

Money quote(s):

"(T)he 11th circuit is discussing Obamacare and whether it’s constitutional for the government to force people to buy things.

That answer is “No”, by the way. Not just “No”, but “If you even contemplated allowing this, you should go to the nearest mirror, stare yourself in the eyes, and punch yourself really hard in the face.” This is just insane in a free country to think the government can force you to buy things, so much so that we really need to start deporting people for completely not understanding the concept of America." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

That's what I love about IMAO and Frank J. He never beats around the bush, letting you guess at what he really thinks.

The problem is one of ideological orientation. If you think government exists to do stuff, whatever stuff you think needs doing, then requiring people to do what they don't want (this is known as coercion) is fine. After all, you know best.

If, on the other hand, you think that the purpose of government is to do those things for The People (who are, by the way, sovereign) that they can't better do for themselves and that you've helpfully listed those things, as well as the methodology to be employed in their implementation (this is known as a Constitution); well, you can see where there'll be some disagreement.

"Not sure what to do if the courts don’t strike it down. We’d need to get an amendment in place immediately. Otherwise, Republicans will just have to make liberals choke on it by forcing people to buy things like gun and ammo, gas guzzling SUVs, and bacon. Maybe all our money will be spent, but at least we’ll have cool stuff."

re: "My Plan on How to Fight the Next Middle East War"

Frank J. Fleming at PajamasMedia ("exclusive news and opinion 24/7 with correspondents in over forty countries") is thinking about Grand Strategy.

Money quote(s):

"War is hell … if you’re in the war. For everyone else, it’s the whining that gets to us. The constant calls of “quagmire” and how everyone is dying for nothing and that we’re only making things worse and how we’re wasting money (yeah, the left used to pretend to care about that) really wear on us. I don’t know how our troops are doing with all the deployments, but all the civilians seem worn out from only hearing about war. We’re all war weary — despite most of us not being directly affected by any of the combat. Maybe our troops can handle getting shot at and going on multiple deployments just fine, but we can’t deal with the civilians complaining about it all the time."

Remember this?

"Obviously avoiding wars in the Middle East is not a realistic option, and I’m sure we’ll get involved in plenty more in the future. So how can we do that and avoid the constant whining of dumb hippies and having all those useless countries in Europe call us warmongers? Well, think back to the Iraq War and when people really started to viciously complain about it. We had broad support going in, and people were still pretty up on it during the initial bombing campaign and even once we got to the point of pulling down the Saddam statue. People truly started getting angry, and the “Bush=Hitler” signs came out in full force, when we stayed and tried to help.

Bombing a country is nothing, but hanging around the country afterward, helping it rebuild and establish a system of government where the citizens don’t get bossed around by a homicidal dictator, gets us into trouble. And it is pretty difficult for the troops; it requires them to stand out there exposed among the populace instead of just running around in tanks and exploding stuff. Plus it takes a long time, during which there will be constant whining about it, especially if there are Republicans in office to blame. The left basically collaborated with the insurgents in Iraq, saying, “Hey, if you kill more troops, then we will scream even louder about how awful this war is and hopefully get Bush out of office. So help us out here!”"

You have to love Frank J. He has a plain-spoken way of saying what he thinks and making it accessible.

"So I ask: Why should we even stay and help a country after we’ve bombed it?

Think about it. When President Bush gave that famous speech on the aircraft carrier in front of the “Mission Accomplished” banner, we could have just left the war then and said we won, and who could have argued with us? If you can go to a country, blow stuff up, and leave unscathed, that sounds like success. If someone came and burned your house and walked away, you wouldn’t say you won because the guy left. So why shouldn’t we in a future conflict in a Middle Eastern country just blow up stuff, declare victory, and leave?"

This is what's called a punitive expedition or war. Because its purpose is to punish. And that's it.

____

Hat tip to Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.").

re: "Culturally Sensitive Female Soldiers"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") provides his own unique perspective on cultural sensitivity.

Money quote(s):

"We’re now talking about women in combat, and if we’re sending women overseas in that role we should only be emphasizing how superior they are to all around them and how they can easily kill anyone. They can’t be getting orders like, “So take down all the hostiles… unless one of them asks you to make him a sammich, because they expect women to do that in their culture.” Some cultures have idiotic beliefs, and we have to be a little less sensitive and more willing to call them out on that. When we go into a country, we should make a nice list of what about their culture is idiotic and what we won’t respect, just so everyone is clear.

Plus, why is it on our female soldiers to be sensitive? The one with the assault rifle — now that’s who people need to worry about being sensitive to." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)