Posted on 05/10/2010 1:57:51 PM PDT by Patriot1259
Pet Peeve: The word is "Rationale", not "rational".
On the other hand, I have no clue what DeVore meant by "existential" in this context. He obviously didn't mean it in the context of the philosophy of existentialism, because the usage would then be better as "presented only an existential threat to the United States", as opposed to a rational or emperical threat.
But if he means that the threat doesn't "exist", he is just flat-out wrong. He might argue that their threat is only marginal, but "existential" just means that the threat exists, not how serious a threat could be.
Of course, I don't understand what his point was supposed to be anyway -- is he arguing that we should make nice with Al Qaeda?
I think CA is probably a lost cause.
My pet peeve is editors who don’t properly edit. As a technical writer, I see all kinds of misspelled or mis-used words in articles.
I believe Carly is the best candidate. Her positions on important issues are in concert with those of most Freepers, and she is the candidate most likely to defeat Boxer. In support of those opinions, I have helped raise a not insubstantial number of dollars for her campaign.
However, at the end of the day, if she trails DeVore by a statistically significant margin in the last poll taken before the primary election, I will personally urge her to withdraw and endorse Devore. Campbell is simply unacceptable.
I hope very much that DeVore will receive similar advice if he trails Carly in that poll.
I think he meant it as in “The Taliban and AQ do not threaten the existence of the US” as say the USSR did with their vast nuclear arsenal. They could have wiped us out in minutes, the Taliban and AQ can’t.
Now, I disagree with that, but that’s what I’d guess he meant.
I also think way too much is made over the reason behind her endorsement here. I’d guess that Fiorina and her campaign reached out to her and sought the endorsement(or maybe the Susan B Anthony list and other pro life groups. She’s speaking at the SBA fundraiser in DC and they endorsed Fiorina). I doubt she decided to endorse Fiorina on her own and called her up and said “I’m endorsing you whether you like it or not”.
Then she saw that Fiorina’s positions are solidly conservative(pro life, for repeal of the health care bill, anti cap and trade, pro border security/anti amnesty, pro 2A and gun rights, pro military, pro death penalty and tough on crime, etc...)and that was that.
Also, the CA race will be high profile race in a big state and Fiorina is one of the few conservative/pro-life women running and it makes sense she’d be inclined to endorse her. She’d also probably be inclined to endorse Sue Lowden in NV, Jane Norton in CO, Kelly Ayotte in NH, etc... I’m pretty sure Linda McMahon is pro-choice, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she endorsed her either, she seems pretty conservative otherwise. I mean is anyone really surprised that she’d be endorsing other GOP women?
I don’t think it was all that complicated.
It's so bad that I've seen the phrase "pet peeve" rendered as "pet peas."
No. He was talking about the "end game" in Afghanistan, and how that is defined. This sentence was excerpted when he was more broadly describing the current situation in Afghanistan and what the role of the US military would be with respect to nation building, and he highlighted that building a democracy would take 100 years in Afghanistan.
He quite clearly states that we should kill our enemy, wherever they are but we should avoid nation building. This story links to the video from where the sentence was excerpted.
Even if all you needed was payment of the $500 billion in pension funding.
Let the illegals and Hollywood have it and get the F out.
It's probably a matter of semantics and context. While it's true the Jihadis don't, and won't ever posses the kind of lethality we saw with our former enemies, to certainly include the Soviets, they are clearly a danger. Asymmetric warfare especially when nuclear potential is there, is nothing to dismiss.
But, some people believe that we should rebuild both Iraq and Afghanistan the same way we rebuilt Japan and Germany. This, I disagree with, entirely, and I believe DeVore does as well. I think this is point he's trying to make. DeVore points out that the industrialized complex found in Japan and Germany are completely absent, therefore Afghanistan will never be able to raise massive navies and armies against us.
I think it's wise to keep some operating bases in both countries, from where more precise or limited strikes can be carried out against people who would otherwise have shelter in a quasi-failed state. But, in Afghanistan in particular, we will NEVER defeat the Taliban. They - or their ilk - have been there for thousands of years. They aren't going away. We should learn to become a nuisance and impediment to them, but not an occupying army.
That is nothing but pre-9/11 "thinking" that got us into this trouble in the first place ... thinking that they were no threat to us... yeah! until they did that on 9/11 ... hoo-boy!
And yet again, it's exactly this type of "thinking" that Chuck DeVore exhibits here, that will lead to the next major attack on the United States by either the Taliban or Al Qaeda or any of the Muslim terrorists working out of that general region.
The Bush Administration made a real point of that (i.e., the threat being very real and existential) ... and we could be talking about weapons of mass destruction, like biological, affecting millions upon millions of people, or nukes, taking about two or three or four major metropolitan areas.
But, even if they did take out three major metropolitan areas, at once, with nukes -- would that cause the U.S. to cease to exist... nope! However, it would exist in a radically different world, afterwards -- just like that radically different world after 9/11.
Apparently some people want to have that happen first -- before they perceive an "existential threat" to the U.S. -- it sure sounds like "pre-9/11 thinking" to me... and so, I think that's a sure sign that many have slipped back into that disinterested thinking of pre-9/11...
And if we've got this guy, Chuck DeVore in that pre-9/11 thinking too... as evidenced by what he just said -- then we don't need him in the U.S. Senate, at all.
Don’t be fooled, support Chuck DeVore for U.S. Senate!
Taliban seems like mission creep that started with al Queda.
BTTT
Well said.
DeVore not having the background in National and International affairs to be a Senator. Having done some service in the Army to payback money for his schooling and
not being in any war zones or any combat does not make any special qualifacations. Chuck is also out of the loop as far as current stratgy in dealing with the affairs we face.
StacyD finding more creative ways to get pulled articles re-posted, I see.
“I think CA is probably a lost cause.”
Not necessarily. It was California who gave
the world Ronald Reagan. And, if we can make
it known to the majority of our voters just
what and who is responsible for our economic
woes we just might get this thing turned a-
round.
In 1988, DeVore was the public liaison director for the Congressional campaign of Reagan's Senior Associate Counsel Chris Cox. After Cox won the election, DeVore served as senior assistant to Cox during his first term. DeVore graduated from the U.S. Army's Military Intelligence Officer Basic Course and Advanced Courses, the Combined Arms Services School, and the Command and General Staff College. His overseas military service included deployments to Panama and Korea. In 1990-91, during the Gulf War, DeVore was deployed to Fort Irwin, California where he was assigned to the Opposing Force (OPFOR).
Obviously Devore doesn't know what he's talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.