Posts Tagged ‘surrender’

THIS Is What ‘Successful Diplomacy’ Looks Like To Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton And Democrats

January 14, 2016

Barack Obama’s, Hillary Clinton’s and Democrats’ idea of what “successful diplomacy” looks like:

Obama Navy Surrenders

I don’t know what burns my butt more: my warriors on their knees with their hands on their heads in surrender and submission, or the Democrat Party trumpeting it as is illustrated by the following New York Times pull quote:

Their quick release was hailed by the Obama administration as an unintended benefit of the new diplomatic relationship with Iran

Okay, I take it back: I really DO know: surrender and humiliation is bad; reveling in and celebrating surrender and humiliation is far, far worse and far, far more despicable.

As it is, let me give you Obama’s, Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s version of “serving with honor and distinction” (remember that?  And this is where we are with that pathetic little weasel now) as our Obama military after submissively surrendering abjectly apologizes and thanks Iran for humiliating them:

“We were so wrong.  We’re just infidels, after all.  We are so, so grateful to you for not sawing our heads off as we so truly deserve.”

The more of a traitor you are to your country, the happier Obama and Hillary and their Democrat Party are.

Well, thank you very much for that. I had no idea Obama had promoted Bowe Bergdahl to Lieutenant.  I’m actually surprised that Obama didn’t release a hundred terrorist commanders from Gitmo just to show his gratitude.

I mean, yes this lieutenant violated the heart of the code of military conduct for a US serviceman captured.  Yes, Iran violated every international law in it’s treatment of prisoners.  The photos and videos blatantly violate articles 13 and 17 of the Geneva Convention.  A Politico article points out the following:

“You’re not supposed to take photos to be used in propaganda media,” Pregent told POLITICO in a phone interview Wednesday. “You look at what they released this morning. They have a video of them boarding the ship, Americans on their knees with their hands behind their head, videotaping them as if that’s amusing. That’s a violation of the Geneva Convention.”

By releasing media that makes the sailors identifiable, Pregent added, Iran again violated the Geneva Convention, the international series of treaties setting a standard for treatment of civilians, prisoners of war and soldiers who are unable to fight.

“In this case, the sailors weren’t necessarily prisoners of war, but they were detained, and when you detain uniformed military you have to treat them a certain way, and Iran’s in violation of that,” said Pregent, who noted his opposition to the Obama administration’s Iran deal. “It’s just making a point that this actually did warrant an apology from Iran. This wasn’t just a simple rescue of distressed American sailors after their ship broke down.”

Thank you for violating the Geneva Convention and making us look like the disgraces we are in the age of Obama, Iran.  We thank you for your generosity and kindness.

What the Islamic world saw is America’s warriors on their knees in humiliation, our female soldier submitting to Islam by wearing a hijab, and the United States Navy clearly surrendering.

As for Obama’s new Secretary of State roach that he replaced his last roach with, well, why didn’t you just scoop yourself out one of the Ayatollah’s turds from his toilet and eat it to show how much of their crap you’ll willing to accept???  I mean, hey, Kerry, maybe after that you could give the Ayatollah an enema with your tongue while you’re at it.

As disgusting as that image is, the picture of our warriors surrendering to Iran is massively MORE disgusting.

Would you like to know what REAL “successful diplomacy” and a TRUE “diplomatic relationship with Iran” would look like?

It would look like an Iran TERRIFIED to do something like this to the United States of America or its warriors.

Unfortunately, instead, it looks like another glorious day for “Allahu Akbar!”

Time to hang the American flag upside down again.  Or you can just fly this Obama States of America flag instead. (see my article on that down-memory-lane outrage here).  Either way, it signals the dire distress of the United States of America.

 

Advertisements

Why Fighting For Our Country Under Obama Is Different Than Any Other Time – Except Maybe Vietnam

July 5, 2010

Fighting a war under the command of Barack Obama is very different than fighting under the command of any president who has ever come before.  Up until president #44, commanders-in-chief actually had some degree of trust in the soldiers under their command.  They put them into battle for one reason, summed up by President Ronald Reagan’s statement: “We win, they lose.”  They sent them with commonsensical rules for civilized warfare, and then they gave them the mandate to go out and win.  Today we have a commander-in-chief who would prefer not to talk about actually winning:

I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”

In order to avoid the potential for some kind of awkward “victory,” our soldiers and Marines are literally unable to shoot when every element of common sense and the entire history of warfare tell them to shoot:

Troops: Strict war rules slow Marjah offensive
By Alfred de Montesquiou and Deb Riechmann – The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:08:51 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said Marine Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

“This is difficult,” Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. “We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don’t have guns.”

That mindset doesn’t just apply to our fighting men on the ground, who are put in a position in which they can’t defend themselves if their enemy flouts Obama’s miserable rules of engagement.  The pilots flying overhead and the artillerymen on surrounding positions are prevented from supporting our soldiers if they get pinned down, too:

Family calls U.S. military goals ‘fuzzy’
Parents of soldier killed last week criticize firepower restrictions

By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer
First published in print: Thursday, June 24, 2010

QUEENSBURY — The parents of a Lake George soldier killed in Afghanistan attacked the Obama administration Wednesday for “flower children leadership,” and said they would work to change U.S. rules of military engagement in the nine-year conflict.

Hours before holding a wake for their 27-year-old son in Glens Falls, Bill and Beverly Osborn heavily criticized a military policy implemented last year that places some restrictions on when American troops can use firepower in Afghanistan. The new rules were set when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of the Afghanistan effort, and have reportedly made it harder for troops to call in for or initiate air power, artillery and mortars against the Taliban.

The counterinsurgency policy is intended to reduce civilian casualties and win the allegiance of Afghans, McChrystal had said. But echoing criticisms from the Vietnam era, Bill Osborn said Wednesday that it’s tied the hands of service members on the ground.

“We send our young men and women to spill their blood and we won’t let them do their job,” he said from his Queensbury home. “Winning hearts and minds is wonderful, but first we have to defeat the enemy.”

And then we wonder why Obama doubled the American body count from Bush in 2009, and is now on pace to double his own total (which means four times the Bush 2008 Americans KIA).

We just suffered the highest number of American causalities for a single month in the history of the war.  Mind you, EVERY month becomes the new “deadliest month” under Obama.

From icasualties.org:

For those who are historically ignorant, America firebombed Tokyo and Dresden in World War II.  We didn’t make sure that every single person who could possibly get killed during an attack was a 100%-confirmed “militant” before we sent a wave of death at our enemies.  If we’d resorted to that form of liberal moral stupidity, we would have lost – and the only question would have been how many of us would have ended up speaking German, and how many of us would have ended up speaking Japanese.

Thank God we didn’t have Obama leading us back then.

But our rules of engagement still weren’t getting enough American soldiers killed, so Team Obama came up with a better idea: how about ordering soldiers to go into battle with unloaded weapons? That’s right. Soldiers are now told to wait until they actually start falling down on the ground dead before they can actually be allowed to fumble a round into the chamber.

Fighting a War without Bullets?
by  Chris Carter
05/25/2010

Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan.

American soldiers in at least one unit have been ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, an anonymous source stationed at a forward operating base in Afghanistan said in an interview. The source was unsure where the order originated or how many other units were affected.

When a weapon has a loaded magazine, but the safety is on and no round is chambered, the military refers to this condition as “amber status.” Weapons on “red status” are ready to fire—they have a round in the chamber and the safety is off.

The source stated that he had been stationed at the base for only a month, but the amber weapons order was in place since before he arrived. A NATO spokesman could not confirm the information, stating that levels of force are classified.

In other words, our guys can’t prepare their weapons to actually fire until they are already under attack.

Imagine sending our police into a building filled with armed gang members like that.

And you want to know how to win a medal in Obama’s army? Don’t do anything. Certainly don’t actually shoot at the enemy.

Hold fire, earn a medal
By William H. McMichael – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 12, 2010 15:51:31 EDT

U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.

The proposal is now circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, a command spokesman confirmed Tuesday.

“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”

Soldiers are often recognized for non-combat achievement with decorations such as their service’s commendation medal. But most of the highest U.S. military decorations are for valor in combat. A medal to recognize a conscious effort to avoid a combat action would be unique.

It used to be that the hero was the guy who took on the enemy. Now it’s the guy who crawls into the fetal position and walks away from a battle with an unfired weapon.

We can only wonder what Obama’s version of Audie Murphy will look like.

And Iran sure doesn’t have to worry about Obama shooting at them as they develop their nuclear arsenal so they can cause Armageddon.

About the only thing regarding the military Obama is actually determined to fight for is gay rights. You can bet that the same political weasels who won’t let our soldiers actually shoot at the enemy will fight tooth and nail for the right of homosexual soldiers to be able to buttrape their buddies. Because we don’t have nearly enough gay rape in the military. That’s going to be the new meaning to “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Don’t tell, because that homosexual is the new protected class.

And if all of the above doesn’t beat all, you probably don’t want to hear about the fact that Obama’s timetable for a cut-and-run had nothing whatsoever about satisfying military issues and everything about satisfying political ones within Obama’s radical leftwing base.  The military wasn’t even consulted, according to General David Petraeus:

McCain: “General, at any time during the deliberations that the military shared with the President when he went through the decision-making process, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July 2011?”

Petraeus: “Uh, there was not.”

McCain: “There was not – by any military person that you know of?”

Petraeus: “Not that I’m aware of.”

Nobody knows what the hell is going on over there.  Are we going to stay and fight?  Or cut and run?  Most of the Obama administration is saying that we are most definitely going to cut and run in July 2011.  Take Vice President Biden, who says, “In July of 2011 you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.”  All Obama will say is that “We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.” which isn’t really saying anything.

All the money is on a pullout, as Obama cuts and runs.  The Afghan people know that, know that the Taliban will soon be their landlords, and aren’t about to risk any kind of meaningful alliance with America that would be necessary to actually winning over there.

Do you remember FDR telling Churchill, “I’ll give you a year, and then we’re running with our tail between our legs where it belongs”???

If it’s a war worth fighting, it is a war worth sticking around to fight.

We will win when we allow our fighting men to fight.  And not until then.

If you wonder whether Afghanistan is going to become like Vietnam, stop wondering: it already has.  Because we’re fighting Afghanistan the same way we fought Vietnam – with the mindset of putting our troops in danger while simultaneously preventing them from securing victory.

Harry Reid Calls George Bush AND His Mom A B*TCH

May 30, 2009

Let’s hear it for bipartisan unity and cooperation.

Well, how about let’s NOT and just say we did?  How about if Democrats are as nasty and vile as fermented pig manure instead?

Senate Majority Harry Reid – the man who bravely called for an American surrender even as George Bush was pushing for the strategy that would win the war in Iraq – demonstrated the Democratic standard of graciousness.

Harry Reid has his memoir out, entitled The Good Fight: Hard Lessons from Searchlight to Washington. Thank God, Mark Hemingway read it so no one else has to.

He notes one particular passage that leaps out within the first three pages:

While no one expects Reid to praise George W. Bush, the degree to which he is judgmental and catty regarding the former president pretty much speaks for itself. Three pages in, after lamely trying to establish his bipartisan bona fides by talking up George H. W. Bush, Reid shares this charming anecdote about his early days in the Senate: “[Former Texas senator and vice-presidential candidate Lloyd] Bentsen went on and on effusively about what a quality man President-elect [H. W.] Bush was. Then he paused and said, ‘But watch out for his wife; she’s a bitch.’ I have never had anything against Mrs. Bush, but guided by Bentsen’s crude advice, I’ve always said that our forty-third president is more his mother than his dad.”

What’s the purpose of recording for posterity a bit of hearsay defaming a woman Reid admits he has no cause to dislike? Is Reid really so petty as to insult someone’s mother? Why yes, yes he is.

Now THAT’S just truly classy coming from the leader of the United States Senate: “You’re mother is a bitch, and you take after her.”

I once had a guy try to goad me by calling my mother a bitch.  He got exactly what he wanted, if what he wanted was a trip to the emergency room on a stretcher with blood pouring out of his face and his neck in a brace.  There’s something called “fighting words.”  And what Harry Reid said – vicariously through the mouth of someone else like the coward and weasel he truly is –  is right at the top of the list.  Bentsen may or may not have told you in confidence that he didn’t like the first lady, Harry.  But you are the one who shared the statement that Barbara Bush was a bitch with everyone else.

Too bad George Bush probably won’t follow my example.

And just realize it’s people like Harry Reid who tell conservatives that we have to support Obama and not be divisive – not that calling a former Republican first lady and mother to another president is divisive or anything.

Now, it’s particularly ironic that a guy like Harry Reid would call a guy like George Bush “a bitch” by proxy would be particuarly ironic.  Hemingway continues:

Here’s another unintentionally revealing anecdote describing Reid’s relationship with Bush. In a passage describing a meeting the two men had at the White House on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Reid writes: “That day he wore on his face a look of bravado that we’ve all come to know, and said something I will never have the words to adequately describe. But to understand what he said is to understand something profound about the problem at the heart of the administration. Speaking of the fact that the war was being used by radical Islamists for jihadi recruitment, Bush said, ‘Of course, al Qaeda needs new recruits, because we’re killin’ ’em.’ He then gave a smirk — that ‘Bring em on’ smirk — that we’ve all come to know. ‘We’re killin’ ’em all,’ he said.”

Oh, the horror. Naturally, this comment of Bush’s is followed up with pages of Reid recollecting the perfectly composed monologue he gave in response. (It also helpfully explains in exacting detail why the surge plan then being considered wouldn’t work, with no acknowledgment in retrospect that it did.)

And here’s what happened two days later: “I publicly said that the war is lost.” Perhaps Reid should have worried that one of the United States’ most powerful politician’s declaring the war lost would be a ginormous jihadi-recruitment tool. But no, after pages of describing what a dangerous, shoot-from-the-hip, totally-unwilling-to-genuflect kind of guy George W. Bush is, Reid responds to the remark that will forever define his political career by reiterating that he won’t apologize for having said it.

Let’s see: one man whines, “This war is lost” and tries to surrender.  The other man – who stands up and stands behind a strategy that ended up reducing the number of American casualties even as it turns the tide – wants to stand up and fight the enemies of America who would murder her citizens and soldiers.   And the one that says, “This war is lost” is saying the guy who stood and fought is a bitch?

Perhaps Harry Reid’s next memoir can be entitled, The Manly Art of Surrendering To Terrorist Murderers.

You want to look at a “bitch,” Reid, find yourself a mirror.