Obama ‘s defensive wounds / Maginot line
Here is a short definition of Defensive Wounds :
Defensive wounds are any type of injuries that result from an attempt, or repeated attempts, to defend against an assailant using such sharp edged weapons as knives or blunted instruments such as fists and clubs. Such wounds are usually deeply indented stab wounds, but can be either blunt or sharp in nature. Violent crimes involving defensive wounds can include criminal homicides, rapes, and robberies…
In many cases, the victim will hold up hands and forearms in front of the body in a defensive, posturing position in order to protect the face and chest from injury during the assault inflicted by the perpetrator.”
Mostly found on Cadavers
One thing that the definition doesn’t mention is that such wounds are most often found on cadavers. The cadavers of victims that evidently tried desperately to defend themselves against violent and deadly attacks, but could not muster enough strength or will to inflict sufficient damage upon the attacker in order to stop the attack. The results often wear a toe tag.
This is Obama’s vision for the safety of America.
In Prague Obama told the World that he plans to do away with nuclear weapons.
Of course it sounds all koombaya, but the most deadly of liberal experiments always do! What makes this more unsettling is that so far this administration can’t even negotiate a commitment for a single additional combat soldier from our allies – not a one! Given that, what demented fool would believe that Obama can negotiate an enemy into giving up its most powerful weapon?
Did they negotiate with North Korea?
Fresh off handing the sovereignty of our country in financial and corporate legal matters to the Euros , Obama is now moving to destroy our ability to defend ourselves. If we allow Obama to continue on his Dismantle the US tour de force then the fear that Japan knows today, the US and the entire world will know tomorrow.
The concept that our national defense is best served by giving up our most powerful weapons and relying instead on a defensive measure is, first of all, insanity, and second it amounts to nothing less than a modern day Maginot line. Such a strategy has never worked and never will.
Nukes have kept peace.
For over sixty years now, nuclear weapons have kept the world from engaging in WW-III. The threat of retaliatory annihilation has ensured that global-scale all-out war did not raise its ugly head. Not just the superpowers – the US and the former USSR – respected and benefited from nuclear detente, but so did a host of other nations.
India and Pakistan both armed with nuclear weapons have, in spite of saber rattling and skirmishes, refrained from all out war.
Israel’s rumored nuclear arsenal has kept at bay a new would be coalition of its enemies.
North Korea has under arms over 800,000 troops within 90 miles of the DMZ. They are supported by over 8,000 artillery systems and over 2,000 tanks. As most of these are housed in over 4,000 underground facilities, the numbers we have are probably an underestimation of the PKA. What isn’t underestimated is that they are capable of overrunning the 50,000 US troops that defend South Korea in no time flat and be in Seoul even sooner. The sole reason that they don’t is the nuclear threat form the US.
Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines and maybe even Australia are today not required to house and feed the People’s Liberation Army because of the safety provided by US Nuclear Weapons.
Europe itself, certainly Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, would be very fluent in Russian but for the nuclear weapons of both US and Europe.
Obama wants to change all that.
Obama wants to do away with all this and why not, he is, after all, the Messiah. As such, he has to but “sit down with other leaders” – as he is so often fond of saying – and show them the light. I guess the negotiations for additional troops to Afghanistan must have been done standing up because oddly enough the leaders of our allied nations, unimpressed by the Manchild’s divinity, refused to budge.
North Korea is a different story. I bet Kim Jung Ill is just holding out for a chance to bathe in Obama’s munificence and he will then immediately renounce his evil ways.
Our military is highly maneuverable, but relatively small. Without the great force multiplier that are nuclear weapons, the US could not possibly intervene in any significant manner to help defend more than one or, at best, maybe two nations. The rest would fall prey to warmongers who would take advantage of Obama’s sheer stupidity.
Who knows, perhaps every so often the world is destined to be awash in blood resulting form liberal experiments. I guess the untold tens of millions, probably over a hundred million people, that died as the result of the communist experiment wasn’t enough. Perhaps the left wing Nazi socialist experiment that resulted in WWII has been forgotten. Perhaps this generation’s bloody liberal experiment will start with Obama giving up our most powerful weapons…
There is no example in all of history of a nation that survived by having only defensive capabilities while lacking the capability of mounting a devastating offense. On the other hand, history is chuck full of the reverse, whereby nations with powerful offensive capabilities survived and prospered.
The great military defensive blunders are the subjects well known and studied throughout history! The debacle of the Maginot line is, of course, the most famous example of how to get invaded by putting your trust in a defensive oriented military strategy, but there have been others. The French did it again in Dien Bien Phu by inviting the Vietnamese to “wash against our defenses”. The only thing that was washed was the French out of Indochina. The US almost suffered a similar fate at Khe Sahn but for the courage of the US Marines and soldiers who defended the base and the tremendous air support.
The Germans were not immune either. The one country who pioneered offensive tactics and strategy in the modern era fell itself victim to ignoring its own doctrine. Fortress Europe, a defensive posture by the Germans, was breached and successfully conquered because the Germans were not able to counterattack in a meaningful way to repulse the allied invasion.
Germany failed to heed its own doctrine.
It’s ironic that perhaps Germany itself gives us the most clear example of how impossible it is to win a war without the capability to strike devastating blows upon the enemy. The German bombing campaign against the Soviet Union was long and arduous, but in the end ineffective. Lacking a heavy bomber (opting to cancel the Ural-Bomber program in favor of smaller bombers) the Germans had no response to the Soviet strategy of simply moving factories much farther east. Their inability to destroy the Soviet logistics led in the end to Russian troops marching and raping in Berlin.
I have a simple question. Without fear of retaliation, what will stop an aggressor from just attacking over and over again until successful? This holds true on any scale. What is to stop a corner thug from repeatedly robbing you or hacking at you with a machete unless he knows that you can retaliate? What is to stop rogue nations, or even not so overtly rogue ones from attacking us if we give up our most powerful means of retaliation? Nothing. They’ll just keep doing until they succeed and the bodies of millions of Americans will litter the streets. ( There will not be enough Haz–Mat capabilities to round up the cadavers.)
From the innocent victims that did not fight back, but tried in vain to defend themselves only to incur “defensive wounds” to entire nations that did the same, the results are identical – toe tags!
That is Obama’s vision for America!