Stop Obama’s Wars of Imperialist Aggression!

I don’t typically wade into politics with my posts, but I just can’t help myself. The other day I was driving around in a town to be unnamed and stumbled upon the building you see in the picture below.

sooper seekrit warehouse

It looks like a typical warehouse that you would find in any of a million industrial parks in the United States.

But upon further investigation I found something quite different. This is the warehouse that the left uses to store it’s papier mache heads, sign making materials and other props for protest marches. Upon sniffing around it for a bit, I noticed that is was packed to the brim. It looked to me as they had contracted with a local lumberyard to supply the wood for their signage.

All humor aside, does the left not think that we haven’t noticed a certain…well…silence over Obama’s policies? It is OK for Obama to not only not decrease troop levels, but increase them as he is doing in Afghanistan? Why isn’t Gitmo closed? What the hell, even Iraq even has troops there that represent the Great Satan ™ as of now. I know because I am still sending care packages to them (unlike ANY of the protesters who claim they support the troops).

So just exactly what am I to think of the left? That these wars are OK as long as the President and Congress have a D by their names? Puhleeeze.

9 thoughts on “Stop Obama’s Wars of Imperialist Aggression!”

  1. Friday on NPR, I heard a representative from “Nebraskans for Peace” criticize the ‘war of choice’ in Afghanistan, note than non of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghanis, etc.

    The left only supported Afghanistan as an excuse to oppose Iraq.

  2. The collectivist faction is totally opposed to the growth and use of western, esp. American, military power and economic/cultural influence anywhere in the world.

    The current regime in the US promises to, and is actively engaged in, the reduction of US military and economic strength around the world. Therefore, the collectivist community will support it as long as it makes identifiable progress towards these goals.

    The recent cancellations of several significant future military systems, and the continuing breast beating and apologizing in every direction, are significant steps in the direction of weakening and humbling the US. The repeated insults and slights towards our long standing allies also helps accomplish the goal of lessening the strength and influence of the US in the world.

    The collectivist camp will ignore minor procedural necessities as long as the general path moves in their approved directions. This group has never supported any initiatives that increased or expanded the strength and influence of the US and its allies, including WW2, and so it is not surprising that they would turn against “the good war” in Afghanistan as soon as it had served its purpose as a foil against which to negatively compare Iraq.

    Your post seems to complain of a lack of consistency on their part. Not so. The collectivist community is entirely consistent in their basic program, which is to limit, weaken, and undermine the capitalist US in every possible way.

    The next time you find yourself wondering “Why would they want to do that?”, just remember that the well being of the US and its citizens is not their goal.

    We are caught now between two antagonistic world wide movements who are united in their hatred and contempt for the individualistic, capitalist, private property based culture of the US which is faltering, but still widely supported and dangerous to their goals. It is a marriage of convenience, it is true, but a dangerous combination of external and internal enemies working in concert none the less.

    Until we clearly identify and deal with these adversaries, much of what occurs will seem odd and incongruous.

  3. I think I might shed some light here.

    The antiwar Left, the Hard Left and the tactically Left Democratic partisan activists like the types are having it out amongst themselves on their private email lists ad public bulletin boards over whether or not to crank up oposition to Obama over Afghanistan and, if so, by how much? The Hard Left is getting appointments to 4th-6th tier policy jobs under the radar and the partisans are worried about 2010 and 2012 and HealthCare and they are both feeling unusually risk averse. By themselves, the antiwar crowd can’t accomplish jack, so they are writing many an anguished, bitter, hectoring comment or post to badger the felow travellers into line.

    Maybe the storage bin is a sign they are getting ready for a national temper tantrum to force the issue and make ppl on the Left choose sides, once Obama decides on a public strategy for Afghanistan. Could get vicious.

    I suspect they will lose that intra-Left power struggle and they will end up learning what “the Chicago Way” really means.

  4. Zenpundit at 2057 hrs says:

    I suspect they will lose that intra-Left power struggle and they will end up learning what “the Chicago Way” really means.

    THAT woke up the historian in me! Consider, that we have been discussing in reference to Britain on another thread, the ideological heritage of both the BNP and the NSDAP. The conclusion I personally accept is that they are both of the Left [Although to be honest, Left and Right are convenient fictions that like all such oversimplify and blur reality. The real model, I believe would be a circle, with the Nazis and the Marxists adjacent to each other. They are both authoritarian, statist, only respect people in masses and detest them as individuals, and share the exact same methods; secret police, gulags, torture, Nacht und Nebel, Agitprop, etc.].

    Dealing with the economic and political processes of the current regime here, one sees both the Corporatist strain and definitely the authoritarian extra-legal strain is in view.

    But just as there was a split within the NSDAP between the faction led by Adolf and that led by Ernst Roehm; there is a difference between the Chiroptera Lunarii and the Chicago thugs [no implication as to our hosts, who refer to a different concept of Chicago]. The difference extends to both tactics and goals.

    Ernst Roehm and his conception of the future of Germany was more in the Socialist mode than Adolf’s. He had a vision of the SA as the “Peoples’ Militia”, and detested both the traditional military and the wealthy magnates who ended up financing Hitler. He viewed the Nazi revolution as being a populist movement, and envisioned himself as the leader of that movement.

    This bifurcation could not last long. It did not. Hitler took power in January 1933. Roehm and the SA were broken in June of 1934. It was not a gentlemanly removal from positions of power.

    Those of us who have looked at the current regime with abhorrence have expected some form of suppression of free expression soon. I had not considered that Buraq might have to clear his “Left” flank first. I had not anticipated a Night of the Long Knives, but Buraq Hussein may indeed have another tactic that goes beyond throwing yet another former supporter under the rhetorical bus.

    Subotai Bahadur

Comments are closed.