<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bloodied Hagel Heads to the Pentagon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 06:24:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: vps</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4373285</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[vps]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4373285</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I really love this site. You write about very interesting things. Thanks for all your tips and information.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really love this site. You write about very interesting things. Thanks for all your tips and information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4336332</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:35:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4336332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are in thrall to a fantasy.  The fantasy starts with Iran being an existential threat, followed by a fantasy that we can march in, invade and make Iran a nice place.   
 
You&#039;re a fool.  There is no discussing reality with a fantasist.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are in thrall to a fantasy.  The fantasy starts with Iran being an existential threat, followed by a fantasy that we can march in, invade and make Iran a nice place.   </p>
<p>You&#039;re a fool.  There is no discussing reality with a fantasist.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: watsa46</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4330403</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[watsa46]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Mar 2013 04:13:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4330403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Soon or later, Hagel will have his epiphany unless he is a Muslim convert. Than he may still have one. It is called miracle. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Soon or later, Hagel will have his epiphany unless he is a Muslim convert. Than he may still have one. It is called miracle. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4327617</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 09:31:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4327617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_an...&lt;/a&gt; ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_an" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_an</a>&#8230; </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326726</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 03:59:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326726</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;So the problem to you is not the ACTUAL problem of the futility of trying to &quot;reform&quot; the ME and (supposedly) combat Islamism by going after a country that neither attacked us on 9/11 nor had an Islamist regime in power.&quot; 
 
Iraq was not attacked due to &quot;Islamism&quot; or &quot;reforming the ME.&quot; They did not attack us on 9/11/2001, but the events of 9/11/2001 revealed to everyone (paying attention) that terrorists could land big hits if we don&#039;t change how we deal with &quot;far away&quot; terrorists. There isn&#039;t &quot;far enough away&quot; any longer. 
 
We have evidence of Iraqi involvement in global terrorism. The US government has no position against any religion other than Shinto AFAIK. I do personally, but that has nothing to do with my policy suggestions, especially military ones. Not until the war is already justified, and only then when it&#039;s clear religious ideology was a factor leading to those needs, then the model in Japan is fine with me. Personal worship of allah is anyone&#039;s right. Scheming against a sovereign is not. 
 
&quot;Yellow cake&quot; or not, the leftist uprising was absurd anti-Americanism that led to encouraging the insurgents just as it did during the cold war with the Soviets. But perhaps you don&#039;t think our enemies monitor &quot;peace movements&quot; here in the West. In fact they fund them. 
 
The bottom line is that lies about the USA and disloyal citizens shouting those lies at moments that served the enemy can NOT be denied as adding to the blood and treasure costs of that war or any war since the 1960s. 
 
At the very least, leftists would keep their mouths shut at least until they show a more constructive solution, but that&#039;s not their agenda. That is the point. That is the bottom line conservative position, no matter how you characterize it as the self-professed representative of &quot;reality.&quot; The kind of reality that is very liberal with the use of objective facts. Problems don&#039;t go away by simply ignoring them. Clinton&#039;s appeasement policies vis-a-vis Islamic regimes and militants failed and so did Carter&#039;s. Reagan wasn&#039;t generally focused on Islam but did a lot better. Bush didn&#039;t go far enough either. That&#039;s looking back though and I can forgive honest mistakes. I don&#039;t need or want to forgive traitors and or liars. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;So the problem to you is not the ACTUAL problem of the futility of trying to &quot;reform&quot; the ME and (supposedly) combat Islamism by going after a country that neither attacked us on 9/11 nor had an Islamist regime in power.&quot; </p>
<p>Iraq was not attacked due to &quot;Islamism&quot; or &quot;reforming the ME.&quot; They did not attack us on 9/11/2001, but the events of 9/11/2001 revealed to everyone (paying attention) that terrorists could land big hits if we don&#039;t change how we deal with &quot;far away&quot; terrorists. There isn&#039;t &quot;far enough away&quot; any longer. </p>
<p>We have evidence of Iraqi involvement in global terrorism. The US government has no position against any religion other than Shinto AFAIK. I do personally, but that has nothing to do with my policy suggestions, especially military ones. Not until the war is already justified, and only then when it&#039;s clear religious ideology was a factor leading to those needs, then the model in Japan is fine with me. Personal worship of allah is anyone&#039;s right. Scheming against a sovereign is not. </p>
<p>&quot;Yellow cake&quot; or not, the leftist uprising was absurd anti-Americanism that led to encouraging the insurgents just as it did during the cold war with the Soviets. But perhaps you don&#039;t think our enemies monitor &quot;peace movements&quot; here in the West. In fact they fund them. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that lies about the USA and disloyal citizens shouting those lies at moments that served the enemy can NOT be denied as adding to the blood and treasure costs of that war or any war since the 1960s. </p>
<p>At the very least, leftists would keep their mouths shut at least until they show a more constructive solution, but that&#039;s not their agenda. That is the point. That is the bottom line conservative position, no matter how you characterize it as the self-professed representative of &quot;reality.&quot; The kind of reality that is very liberal with the use of objective facts. Problems don&#039;t go away by simply ignoring them. Clinton&#039;s appeasement policies vis-a-vis Islamic regimes and militants failed and so did Carter&#039;s. Reagan wasn&#039;t generally focused on Islam but did a lot better. Bush didn&#039;t go far enough either. That&#039;s looking back though and I can forgive honest mistakes. I don&#039;t need or want to forgive traitors and or liars. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326311</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 01:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;What&#039;s the old definition of insanity?&quot; 
 
It goes like this: Anyone who refers to himself as EarlyBird is very likely insane. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;What&#039;s the old definition of insanity?&quot; </p>
<p>It goes like this: Anyone who refers to himself as EarlyBird is very likely insane. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326307</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 01:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326307</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You&#039;re clearly devoted to a fantasy war against Iran, and there&#039;s nothing we&#039;ll be able to agree on.&quot; 
 
We won&#039;t agree because you can&#039;t actually comprehend the discourse. 
 
&quot;Ultimately your position is that we should do the very same thing we did in Iraq, but this time it will work out.&quot; 
 
You can&#039;t actually comprehend the discourse. 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;You&#039;re clearly devoted to a fantasy war against Iran, and there&#039;s nothing we&#039;ll be able to agree on.&quot; </p>
<p>We won&#039;t agree because you can&#039;t actually comprehend the discourse. </p>
<p>&quot;Ultimately your position is that we should do the very same thing we did in Iraq, but this time it will work out.&quot; </p>
<p>You can&#039;t actually comprehend the discourse. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326302</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 01:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;If I agreed with your Armageddon scenario, there would be no price worth paying to avoid it. But it&#039;s nonsense.&quot; 
 
You can&#039;t make sense out of anything. I have said only that MAD is based on the assumption that the players (game theory) are rational actors. The Iranian regime is the furthest thing from being rational. Their rhetoric and ideology demand threatening world war and destruction of all those who oppose Shia Islam if &quot;allah&quot; gives them the means to fight jihad. 
 
Nuclear weapons would certainly tilt the power towards enabling that if they were motivated to do so. But instead you present them as rational, just like the atheist regimes. 
 
Pakistan has nukes too, but for them it&#039;s not good enough to blow themselves up only to destroy India, their near enemy. Iran on the other hand hates the US and Israel first. They believe they have a lot more to prove than Pakistan does. Saudi Arabia is the nominal leader of the Sunni caliph contenders. Iran is the clear leader of the Shia factions. Saudi Arabia can&#039;t hope to attack the West directly any time soon. Iran has a much more realistic hope. 
 
Pakistan doesn&#039;t consider itself a martyr for Islam. That is what it would take because India, though less powerful on paper, would destroy Pakistan if they had the justification. Everyone knows that the West is divided and this makes enemies realize that with the right political approach, military response to aggression can always be greatly mitigated if not completely neutralized. Iran would not only exploit this power, but they expect to get away with it for no more than it cost them to sweep landmines with their own children. They&#039;ll take a few hits with bloody glee. You prove with almost every comment you make that you know nothing about Islamic history, ideology or current events. Blood is spilled in the name of Islam every day around the globe. 
 
&quot;Armageddon&quot; is in Israel. I don&#039;t know if Iran is heading there specifically and my analysis doesn&#039;t depend on any Biblical theories.  
 
&quot;The only thing we know for sure: if we attempt to again occupy another ME country, in order to chase another pipe dream, we will go bankrupt. Period.&quot; 
 
The threat to our economy comes from the same man appeasing Iran. I&#039;d like that to change too. I don&#039;t want 0&#039;Bama to occupy Iran, that&#039;s for sure. You simply can&#039;t quote me advising an occupation of Iran under these circumstances. You can&#039;t. You can&#039;t read with comprehension either. 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;If I agreed with your Armageddon scenario, there would be no price worth paying to avoid it. But it&#039;s nonsense.&quot; </p>
<p>You can&#039;t make sense out of anything. I have said only that MAD is based on the assumption that the players (game theory) are rational actors. The Iranian regime is the furthest thing from being rational. Their rhetoric and ideology demand threatening world war and destruction of all those who oppose Shia Islam if &quot;allah&quot; gives them the means to fight jihad. </p>
<p>Nuclear weapons would certainly tilt the power towards enabling that if they were motivated to do so. But instead you present them as rational, just like the atheist regimes. </p>
<p>Pakistan has nukes too, but for them it&#039;s not good enough to blow themselves up only to destroy India, their near enemy. Iran on the other hand hates the US and Israel first. They believe they have a lot more to prove than Pakistan does. Saudi Arabia is the nominal leader of the Sunni caliph contenders. Iran is the clear leader of the Shia factions. Saudi Arabia can&#039;t hope to attack the West directly any time soon. Iran has a much more realistic hope. </p>
<p>Pakistan doesn&#039;t consider itself a martyr for Islam. That is what it would take because India, though less powerful on paper, would destroy Pakistan if they had the justification. Everyone knows that the West is divided and this makes enemies realize that with the right political approach, military response to aggression can always be greatly mitigated if not completely neutralized. Iran would not only exploit this power, but they expect to get away with it for no more than it cost them to sweep landmines with their own children. They&#039;ll take a few hits with bloody glee. You prove with almost every comment you make that you know nothing about Islamic history, ideology or current events. Blood is spilled in the name of Islam every day around the globe. </p>
<p>&quot;Armageddon&quot; is in Israel. I don&#039;t know if Iran is heading there specifically and my analysis doesn&#039;t depend on any Biblical theories.  </p>
<p>&quot;The only thing we know for sure: if we attempt to again occupy another ME country, in order to chase another pipe dream, we will go bankrupt. Period.&quot; </p>
<p>The threat to our economy comes from the same man appeasing Iran. I&#039;d like that to change too. I don&#039;t want 0&#039;Bama to occupy Iran, that&#039;s for sure. You simply can&#039;t quote me advising an occupation of Iran under these circumstances. You can&#039;t. You can&#039;t read with comprehension either. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326265</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 01:12:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You are absolutely saying &quot;do over.&quot; And you now have some magical bookkeeping plan, too.&quot; 
 
 
Just stomp your feet on the ground and that will ensure you are correct. 
 
 
&quot;You&#039;re focusing on the immediate military operation, the easy part, rather than the next step, of transforming the Iran&#039;s government and culture, which we have very little power over.&quot; 
 
We empower those who would separate the state with Islam, or at the very least require the same thing from them that we required from the Japanese to end that war successfully. I guess you don&#039;t know much about Shinto either or what people thought about Japan and Japanese culture before the war, and for a long time after the war. 
 
&quot;Iraq was a disaster because we thought we could transform an alien, hostile culture which we didn&#039;t understand, which we had no connections to and had a long and hostile history with. Sound familiar? We broke open a society that had boiled with sectarian hatred since Iraq was formed, after smashing its already weak infrastructure and institutions.&quot; 
 
You seem to understand the naysayer talking points but only superficially. Your comments do nothing to address what I suggest. If Iran fails to establish a liberal democracy, it would at least be disarmed and it would be done far more cheaply than the operations in Iraq. 
 
But more to the point, we&#039;re a long way from calling for invasion. You&#039;re the one who&#039;s adamant that we can either support the great appeaser, or we can spend a trillion dollars and waste years fighting a war with our hands tied. 
 
That&#039;s your favorite false dichotomy and it&#039;s so old and stale. Worse for you is that nobody here is buying it. Only leftists accept that nonsense uncritically. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;You are absolutely saying &quot;do over.&quot; And you now have some magical bookkeeping plan, too.&quot; </p>
<p>Just stomp your feet on the ground and that will ensure you are correct. </p>
<p>&quot;You&#039;re focusing on the immediate military operation, the easy part, rather than the next step, of transforming the Iran&#039;s government and culture, which we have very little power over.&quot; </p>
<p>We empower those who would separate the state with Islam, or at the very least require the same thing from them that we required from the Japanese to end that war successfully. I guess you don&#039;t know much about Shinto either or what people thought about Japan and Japanese culture before the war, and for a long time after the war. </p>
<p>&quot;Iraq was a disaster because we thought we could transform an alien, hostile culture which we didn&#039;t understand, which we had no connections to and had a long and hostile history with. Sound familiar? We broke open a society that had boiled with sectarian hatred since Iraq was formed, after smashing its already weak infrastructure and institutions.&quot; </p>
<p>You seem to understand the naysayer talking points but only superficially. Your comments do nothing to address what I suggest. If Iran fails to establish a liberal democracy, it would at least be disarmed and it would be done far more cheaply than the operations in Iraq. </p>
<p>But more to the point, we&#039;re a long way from calling for invasion. You&#039;re the one who&#039;s adamant that we can either support the great appeaser, or we can spend a trillion dollars and waste years fighting a war with our hands tied. </p>
<p>That&#039;s your favorite false dichotomy and it&#039;s so old and stale. Worse for you is that nobody here is buying it. Only leftists accept that nonsense uncritically. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326245</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 01:05:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326245</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Next you&#039;ll tell me how great 0&#039;Bama is in reaching out to build consensus with those who hold conservative views. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Next you&#039;ll tell me how great 0&#039;Bama is in reaching out to build consensus with those who hold conservative views. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326239</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 01:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Where to start? Demanding WMD intelligence fit his desires to go to war and excluding any analyses that told him otherwise was an example of building consensus? Going out of his way to piss off every single US ally in the process of going to war? &quot;  
  
Your characterizations summarizing leftist talking points don&#039;t constitute an actual case to prove your point.  
 
&quot;Was it that he shunned generals who told him he&#039;d be going in way too light that he tried to build consensus with?&quot;  
 
That&#039;s exactly the point. You can&#039;t please everyone. How can you pretend to misunderstand the point? Are you really that stoo pid? Reaching across the aisle means giving bad news to some conservatives. Get it?  
  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-m...&lt;/a&gt;  
 
&quot;Bush himself said repeatedly he didn&#039;t give a damn about polls or what others think.&quot;  
  
EarlyBird heard that Bush said that....and so forth. The forum participant least likely to quote someone or paraphrase accurately: EarlyBird.  
 
&quot;You are waaaay out there,&quot;  
  
I&#039;m completely aware of your perspective.  
 
Bush tried to build a consensus. He seemed to succeed, but leftists like John Kerry had their fingers crossed ready to attack as soon as the goons showed up in the streets to protest against &quot;war&quot; as if taking the initiative means that we created the state of war. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Where to start? Demanding WMD intelligence fit his desires to go to war and excluding any analyses that told him otherwise was an example of building consensus? Going out of his way to piss off every single US ally in the process of going to war? &quot;  </p>
<p>Your characterizations summarizing leftist talking points don&#039;t constitute an actual case to prove your point.  </p>
<p>&quot;Was it that he shunned generals who told him he&#039;d be going in way too light that he tried to build consensus with?&quot;  </p>
<p>That&#039;s exactly the point. You can&#039;t please everyone. How can you pretend to misunderstand the point? Are you really that stoo pid? Reaching across the aisle means giving bad news to some conservatives. Get it?<br />
  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-m" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-m</a>&#8230;  </p>
<p>&quot;Bush himself said repeatedly he didn&#039;t give a damn about polls or what others think.&quot;  </p>
<p>EarlyBird heard that Bush said that&#8230;.and so forth. The forum participant least likely to quote someone or paraphrase accurately: EarlyBird.  </p>
<p>&quot;You are waaaay out there,&quot;  </p>
<p>I&#039;m completely aware of your perspective.  </p>
<p>Bush tried to build a consensus. He seemed to succeed, but leftists like John Kerry had their fingers crossed ready to attack as soon as the goons showed up in the streets to protest against &quot;war&quot; as if taking the initiative means that we created the state of war. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326199</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 00:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326199</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OFM, 
 
You&#039;re clearly devoted to a fantasy war against Iran, and there&#039;s nothing we&#039;ll be able to agree on.   
 
Ultimately your position is that we should do the very same thing we did in Iraq, but this time it will work out.  What&#039;s the old definition of insanity?   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OFM, </p>
<p>You&#039;re clearly devoted to a fantasy war against Iran, and there&#039;s nothing we&#039;ll be able to agree on.   </p>
<p>Ultimately your position is that we should do the very same thing we did in Iraq, but this time it will work out.  What&#039;s the old definition of insanity?   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326192</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 00:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326192</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I mean, &quot;no price NOT worth paying to avoid&quot; the Argmadeddon scenario.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I mean, &quot;no price NOT worth paying to avoid&quot; the Argmadeddon scenario.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326187</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 00:44:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326187</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are absolutely saying &quot;do over.&quot;  And you now have some magical bookkeeping plan, too.   
 
You&#039;re focusing on the immediate military operation, the easy part, rather than the next step, of transforming the Iran&#039;s government and culture, which we have very little power over.   
 
Iraq was a disaster because we thought we could transform an alien, hostile culture which we didn&#039;t understand, which we had no connections to and had a long and hostile history with. Sound familiar?  We broke open a society that had boiled with sectarian hatred since Iraq was formed, after smashing its already weak infrastructure and institutions.   
 
&quot;There are bigger risks doing nothing.&quot; 
 
If I agreed with your Armageddon scenario, there would be no price worth paying to avoid it.  But it&#039;s nonsense. 
 
The only thing we know for sure:  if we attempt to again occupy another ME country, in order to chase another pipe dream, we will go bankrupt.  Period. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are absolutely saying &quot;do over.&quot;  And you now have some magical bookkeeping plan, too.   </p>
<p>You&#039;re focusing on the immediate military operation, the easy part, rather than the next step, of transforming the Iran&#039;s government and culture, which we have very little power over.   </p>
<p>Iraq was a disaster because we thought we could transform an alien, hostile culture which we didn&#039;t understand, which we had no connections to and had a long and hostile history with. Sound familiar?  We broke open a society that had boiled with sectarian hatred since Iraq was formed, after smashing its already weak infrastructure and institutions.   </p>
<p>&quot;There are bigger risks doing nothing.&quot; </p>
<p>If I agreed with your Armageddon scenario, there would be no price worth paying to avoid it.  But it&#039;s nonsense. </p>
<p>The only thing we know for sure:  if we attempt to again occupy another ME country, in order to chase another pipe dream, we will go bankrupt.  Period. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4326137</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 00:28:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4326137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wow.  I actually read these words:  &quot;...Bush tried to build a consensus.&quot;   
 
Where to start?  Demanding WMD intelligence fit his desires to go to war and excluding any analyses that told him otherwise was an example of building consensus?  Going out of his way to piss off every single US ally in the process of going to war?   
 
Was it that he shunned generals who told him he&#039;d be going in way too light that he tried to build consensus with?  Bush himself said repeatedly he didn&#039;t give a damn about polls or what others think.   
 
You are waaaay out there, OFM.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow.  I actually read these words:  &quot;&#8230;Bush tried to build a consensus.&quot;   </p>
<p>Where to start?  Demanding WMD intelligence fit his desires to go to war and excluding any analyses that told him otherwise was an example of building consensus?  Going out of his way to piss off every single US ally in the process of going to war?   </p>
<p>Was it that he shunned generals who told him he&#039;d be going in way too light that he tried to build consensus with?  Bush himself said repeatedly he didn&#039;t give a damn about polls or what others think.   </p>
<p>You are waaaay out there, OFM.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4323208</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:37:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4323208</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Bush&#039;s disasters, and your inability to acknowledge them, is central to your sickness and others on the silly right wing fringe.&quot; 
 
You&#039;re wrong on just about every count. But let me give you a clue to understanding some of your root problems. To start, Bush tried to build consensus. 0&#039;Bama doesn&#039;t. O&#039;Bama is a present-day threat. Bush is merely a convenient skape-goat for 0&#039;Bama.  
 
That and your poor reading comprehension might explain some of the reasons you have no real idea what my positions are. 
 
 
&quot;You are cheerleading for the very same disastrous policies now.&quot; 
 
Wrong. Again. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Bush&#039;s disasters, and your inability to acknowledge them, is central to your sickness and others on the silly right wing fringe.&quot; </p>
<p>You&#039;re wrong on just about every count. But let me give you a clue to understanding some of your root problems. To start, Bush tried to build consensus. 0&#039;Bama doesn&#039;t. O&#039;Bama is a present-day threat. Bush is merely a convenient skape-goat for 0&#039;Bama.  </p>
<p>That and your poor reading comprehension might explain some of the reasons you have no real idea what my positions are. </p>
<p>&quot;You are cheerleading for the very same disastrous policies now.&quot; </p>
<p>Wrong. Again. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4322507</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4322507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You&#039;re proposing another invasion and occupation of another alien Middle East culture, and that save us money?&quot; 
 
Please quote me rather than paraphrasing. 
 
&quot;How would you magic war save money?&quot; 
 
What magic war? Quote me, don&#039;t confuse yourself and others trying to paraphrase. Some times people can do that effectively but you can&#039;t. Ever. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;You&#039;re proposing another invasion and occupation of another alien Middle East culture, and that save us money?&quot; </p>
<p>Please quote me rather than paraphrasing. </p>
<p>&quot;How would you magic war save money?&quot; </p>
<p>What magic war? Quote me, don&#039;t confuse yourself and others trying to paraphrase. Some times people can do that effectively but you can&#039;t. Ever. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4322495</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:53:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4322495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Wow. That&#039;s a big admission for you. Thanks.&quot; 
 
Can you see my eyes rolling? You need to exit your own imagination more often. 
 
&quot;But you are imagining a magical war. If I&#039;m understanding you correctly, you want another chance to do Iraq, but this time do it right in Iran. A quick decapitation of the government, followed by a stable, pro-democracy Iranian regime. I think I&#039;m characterizing your idea fairly here. &quot; 
 
I&#039;ve already said that Iraq was executed poorly because of Rumsfeld&#039;s overconfidence in &quot;transformation.&quot; Google: military transformation 
 
He tried to accomplish too much under experimental conditions (to impress leftists at how simple it would be if successful). This was not realistic. What we got instead does not offer prove that our primary strategic goals were unrealistic. 
 
Bush was a pushover. Rumsfeld a demagogue. Most politicians are flawed. The ones on the left are a lot more flawed than those on the right (greatest understatement of all time). 
 
&quot;The problem is that it generally doesn&#039;t work that way. This would not be a liberation ala&#039; Paris in &#039;44. It would be seen, even by the ayatollahs&#039; internal enemies, as a coup by outside force and occupation. It&#039;s that simple. The country would dissolve into chaos and sectarian civil war, and we&#039;d be right in the middle of it again.&quot; 
 
My objective is to develop the best ideas, not the perfect ideas. I don&#039;t claim there are no risks. There are bigger risks doing nothing. There are no risks simply looking back and counting losses in order to claim you&#039;re smarter. That&#039;s all you do. You don&#039;t suggest any alternatives based on the full reality of the world as it exists. Most of the time you don&#039;t suggest anything constructive at all. You&#039;re conclusions are just fears. Fears are reasonable but that doesn&#039;t mean that those risks could not have been managed. I don&#039;t care what mullahs think. They need to be removed from causing problems if that is what&#039;s stopping us from bringing a more secure world forward rather than just wishing or dreaming about it. 
 
 
&quot;Oh, and you haven&#039;t checked the bank account. Even if that dream could come true, we&#039;d go bankrupt doing it.&quot; 
 
 
You just don&#039;t get it. Our position today would be better than it is now. Not perfect, but better. You keep striving for incremental improvements based on realistic objectives and that is what life on earth is about. Accounting has a lot more dynamic factors than you can apparently understand, so leave that to the experts or return to school when you work on reading comprehension. I&#039;m not suggesting a &quot;do over&quot; in 2013. I&#039;m suggesting we learn from past mistakes. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Wow. That&#039;s a big admission for you. Thanks.&quot; </p>
<p>Can you see my eyes rolling? You need to exit your own imagination more often. </p>
<p>&quot;But you are imagining a magical war. If I&#039;m understanding you correctly, you want another chance to do Iraq, but this time do it right in Iran. A quick decapitation of the government, followed by a stable, pro-democracy Iranian regime. I think I&#039;m characterizing your idea fairly here. &quot; </p>
<p>I&#039;ve already said that Iraq was executed poorly because of Rumsfeld&#039;s overconfidence in &quot;transformation.&quot; Google: military transformation </p>
<p>He tried to accomplish too much under experimental conditions (to impress leftists at how simple it would be if successful). This was not realistic. What we got instead does not offer prove that our primary strategic goals were unrealistic. </p>
<p>Bush was a pushover. Rumsfeld a demagogue. Most politicians are flawed. The ones on the left are a lot more flawed than those on the right (greatest understatement of all time). </p>
<p>&quot;The problem is that it generally doesn&#039;t work that way. This would not be a liberation ala&#039; Paris in &#039;44. It would be seen, even by the ayatollahs&#039; internal enemies, as a coup by outside force and occupation. It&#039;s that simple. The country would dissolve into chaos and sectarian civil war, and we&#039;d be right in the middle of it again.&quot; </p>
<p>My objective is to develop the best ideas, not the perfect ideas. I don&#039;t claim there are no risks. There are bigger risks doing nothing. There are no risks simply looking back and counting losses in order to claim you&#039;re smarter. That&#039;s all you do. You don&#039;t suggest any alternatives based on the full reality of the world as it exists. Most of the time you don&#039;t suggest anything constructive at all. You&#039;re conclusions are just fears. Fears are reasonable but that doesn&#039;t mean that those risks could not have been managed. I don&#039;t care what mullahs think. They need to be removed from causing problems if that is what&#039;s stopping us from bringing a more secure world forward rather than just wishing or dreaming about it. </p>
<p>&quot;Oh, and you haven&#039;t checked the bank account. Even if that dream could come true, we&#039;d go bankrupt doing it.&quot; </p>
<p>You just don&#039;t get it. Our position today would be better than it is now. Not perfect, but better. You keep striving for incremental improvements based on realistic objectives and that is what life on earth is about. Accounting has a lot more dynamic factors than you can apparently understand, so leave that to the experts or return to school when you work on reading comprehension. I&#039;m not suggesting a &quot;do over&quot; in 2013. I&#039;m suggesting we learn from past mistakes. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4322456</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4322456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;So the problem to you is not the ACTUAL problem of the futility of trying to &quot;reform&quot; the ME and (supposedly) combat Islamism by going after a country that neither attacked us on 9/11 nor had an Islamist regime in power. But, golly, you have a convenient excuse for why a bad policy didn&#039;t work too well! &quot; 
 
There are lots of futile activities, but that doesn&#039;t mean that every action must be futile. There are constructive solutions. That&#039;s what I advocate, and when I have the time and the room I can articulate that in more detail, but this is a comments section always attached to specific subtopics and people like you already cry about writing too much or whatever. So what do you want, more or less from me? Not that I&#039;m bound to comply, just saying you&#039;re not consistent. 
 
And I&#039;m not excusing the policies. My suggestions call for changing policies. I&#039;m assigning blame for why we arrived at those bad policies. 
 
&quot;Less snark, more thought, ofm.&quot; 
 
You want more of my thoughts. OK. I&#039;ll keep that in mind as time allows. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;So the problem to you is not the ACTUAL problem of the futility of trying to &quot;reform&quot; the ME and (supposedly) combat Islamism by going after a country that neither attacked us on 9/11 nor had an Islamist regime in power. But, golly, you have a convenient excuse for why a bad policy didn&#039;t work too well! &quot; </p>
<p>There are lots of futile activities, but that doesn&#039;t mean that every action must be futile. There are constructive solutions. That&#039;s what I advocate, and when I have the time and the room I can articulate that in more detail, but this is a comments section always attached to specific subtopics and people like you already cry about writing too much or whatever. So what do you want, more or less from me? Not that I&#039;m bound to comply, just saying you&#039;re not consistent. </p>
<p>And I&#039;m not excusing the policies. My suggestions call for changing policies. I&#039;m assigning blame for why we arrived at those bad policies. </p>
<p>&quot;Less snark, more thought, ofm.&quot; </p>
<p>You want more of my thoughts. OK. I&#039;ll keep that in mind as time allows. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/bloodied-hagel-heads-to-the-pentagon/comment-page-1/#comment-4322444</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:36:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179242#comment-4322444</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Economy. Health. Health care system. These represent national security threats greater than the one Islamism poses.&quot; 
 
Because you say so. OK. You win. 
 
&quot;As for common sense, the only thing more tiresome than a snarky twit who parses each sentence in internet comments is the one who decries &quot;the lack of common sense today.&quot; The first is a teenager&#039;s substitute for critical thinking; the second reserved for Gramps before he&#039;s had his butterscotch sundae.&quot; 
 
I never relied on common sense. I&#039;m not sure it ever existed so I&#039;m not decrying it&#039;s supposed loss. I&#039;m actually arguing simply that today nobody can use any appeal to common sense because leftists live in an entirely different world. We have no common frame of reference. That was the point. 
 
&quot;parses each sentence in internet comments&quot; 
 
Poor you getting called on what you say. I thought you were the realist? Don&#039;t you want to be challenged, to see if your ideas can withstand a critical rebuttal? I do. Leftist sense of being victim when challenged. You&#039;re indoctrinated. Indoctrinated people almost never know it. 
 
 
&quot;Nor are mine &quot;leftist&quot; ideas.&quot; 
 
When you say that Islamism is not a threat, this is leftist. I can give you other examples. But when you (for example) dismiss a civilization that has tried to destroy all other civilizations for almost 14 centuries - that&#039;s not living in the real world. 
 
 
&quot;As I point out time and again, in foreign policy there is a school of thought called &quot;realism&quot; to which I belong,&quot; 
 
Everyone thinks they&#039;re the realist ones. You just can&#039;t show any evidence that it&#039;s true in your case. That&#039;s the challenge. 
 
 
&quot;...in foreign policy there is a school of thought called &quot;realism&quot; to which I belong, and one called &quot;neoconservatism,&quot; of which this site is a bastion, and one known for its pipe-dream idealism and not, let&#039;s say, &quot;common sense.&quot;&quot; 
 
These are your highly subjective thoughts. They are subject to challenge. Leftists cry victim when challenged. More evidence you&#039;re a leftist. If you want to call that your reality, that&#039;s evidence for my claim that there is no common sense, though many leftists try to claim there is. I never said you were one of them, but you actually do claim to own &quot;common sense&quot; when you claim to be in the realist camp. It&#039;s the exact same idea. Your closing paragraph made an argument that you represent common sense but you think you avoided that fallacy by using different phraseology. 
 
Too bad you hate being challenged. You might be smart enough to wake up but you&#039;re too arrogant to listen. Your scare quotes in your last sentence for &quot;common sense&quot; acknowledge that you don&#039;t object to the idea, but only the words. This is another leftist idea. You hit all of the leftist notes. 
 
I&#039;m just trying to help you. Helping you also helps others too when you participate in objective reality. 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Economy. Health. Health care system. These represent national security threats greater than the one Islamism poses.&quot; </p>
<p>Because you say so. OK. You win. </p>
<p>&quot;As for common sense, the only thing more tiresome than a snarky twit who parses each sentence in internet comments is the one who decries &quot;the lack of common sense today.&quot; The first is a teenager&#039;s substitute for critical thinking; the second reserved for Gramps before he&#039;s had his butterscotch sundae.&quot; </p>
<p>I never relied on common sense. I&#039;m not sure it ever existed so I&#039;m not decrying it&#039;s supposed loss. I&#039;m actually arguing simply that today nobody can use any appeal to common sense because leftists live in an entirely different world. We have no common frame of reference. That was the point. </p>
<p>&quot;parses each sentence in internet comments&quot; </p>
<p>Poor you getting called on what you say. I thought you were the realist? Don&#039;t you want to be challenged, to see if your ideas can withstand a critical rebuttal? I do. Leftist sense of being victim when challenged. You&#039;re indoctrinated. Indoctrinated people almost never know it. </p>
<p>&quot;Nor are mine &quot;leftist&quot; ideas.&quot; </p>
<p>When you say that Islamism is not a threat, this is leftist. I can give you other examples. But when you (for example) dismiss a civilization that has tried to destroy all other civilizations for almost 14 centuries &#8211; that&#039;s not living in the real world. </p>
<p>&quot;As I point out time and again, in foreign policy there is a school of thought called &quot;realism&quot; to which I belong,&quot; </p>
<p>Everyone thinks they&#039;re the realist ones. You just can&#039;t show any evidence that it&#039;s true in your case. That&#039;s the challenge. </p>
<p>&quot;&#8230;in foreign policy there is a school of thought called &quot;realism&quot; to which I belong, and one called &quot;neoconservatism,&quot; of which this site is a bastion, and one known for its pipe-dream idealism and not, let&#039;s say, &quot;common sense.&quot;&quot; </p>
<p>These are your highly subjective thoughts. They are subject to challenge. Leftists cry victim when challenged. More evidence you&#039;re a leftist. If you want to call that your reality, that&#039;s evidence for my claim that there is no common sense, though many leftists try to claim there is. I never said you were one of them, but you actually do claim to own &quot;common sense&quot; when you claim to be in the realist camp. It&#039;s the exact same idea. Your closing paragraph made an argument that you represent common sense but you think you avoided that fallacy by using different phraseology. </p>
<p>Too bad you hate being challenged. You might be smart enough to wake up but you&#039;re too arrogant to listen. Your scare quotes in your last sentence for &quot;common sense&quot; acknowledge that you don&#039;t object to the idea, but only the words. This is another leftist idea. You hit all of the leftist notes. </p>
<p>I&#039;m just trying to help you. Helping you also helps others too when you participate in objective reality. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 782/864 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 01:33:19 by W3 Total Cache -->