I'm Happy Obama is Politically Failing- Are You?

[frigidweirdo]

Weirdo, syphilitic (poxy) thinking and what passes for an education at even the finer madrassas in the Muslim world makes for an invariably hackney argument. If you're going to insist for being an apologist for a deeply failed religion and culture, you'd do far better by putting your pathologies and dogma behind you. You might then be able to defend terrorism and assault Bush with a little more credence.

Oh, madrases are ridiculous. I don't support a religious education passing for a proper education in Islamic countries or in the US.

Nowhere, not in one part of anything I have ever said, have I apologized for what Islam is. I don't like Islam. You're missing the point.
Islam has many choices. One is to become more extreme, and it's doing this, in a large part, because of what the US is doing.

Islam isn't going to disappear. If you want to make the world safer you'd try and make Islamic countries more educated, more prosperous because countries that are like this are more stable.
Bush on the other hand went in and destabilized the region. He put the progress of Islam back 100 years.

You say it's failing. Of course it's bloody failing. They've been battered by the west for 200 years. You take away their stability and you're going to get the religion becoming more extreme.

If you can't see the cause and effect, it's not my fault. If you try and claim that this is me supporting Islam, it's not my fault.

I don't like religion, but I accept that people will be religious. But I also understand that religion is a tool, and people will use it for their own needs. If you make the needs to be fighting the US, then Islam is going to become this.

 

[Meathead]

Trying to shift the onus of terrorism is pretty low brow stuff. Undoubtedly, it is heresy to you to suggest that their actions have no excuse what-so-ever. You prefer to go bak to the Crusades to justify the acts of hate, intolerance and those who share your pathology.

FFS, grow up and grow a pair!

 

[Geaux4it]

Just sifting through the pages of Obama's failures

-Geaux

==========================================

The Obama Failures Continue To Mount

So, let’s see:

–the U.S. is becoming increasingly chummy with viciously anti-Israel Qatar and Turkey even as these two countries have become leading sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East, Africa, and Gaza.

–the U.S. policy to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program is a resounding failure (Iran said yesterday, while its centrifuges continue spinning and deadline after deadline is broken, that Western terms for ending its program are unacceptable).

–the U.S. policy toward Egypt is laughably contorted: first Obama threw Hosni Mubarak under the bus, then he supported Islamist Mohammed Morsi the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood and increased U.S. aid to Egypt, then he condemned General Sisi for overthrowing Morsi and virtually stopped U.S. aid to Egypt, and now he has seemingly embraced Sisi and is trying to supply more U.S. aid to Egypt.

And what are we to say about Libya? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? and virtually every other country in the region?

Your humble servant mentions all of these obvious Obama failures by way of pointing out one more that came up yesterday.

It turns out that the U.S. policy to rid Syria of its chemical weapons is also a failure. Israeli sources reported yesterday that to no one’s surprise, Bashir Assad still has much of his most advanced chemical arsenal.

As reported in the Jerusalem Post this morning, a senior Israeli official says that Israeli intelligence shows that Syria has kept “missile warheads, air-dropped bombs, and rocket-propelled grenades primed with toxins like sarin.”

Of course, we all knew this would happen the second that Obama found himself unable to pull the trigger on Syrian stockpiles and willy-nilly handed over what had been an American sphere of influence in the Middle East to Vladimir Putin and Russia.

As the U.S. continues to flounder in this region (and in the world) under President Obama, one can only wonder what will be the ultimate effect of his foreign policy–or lack thereof–on Israel.


The Obama Failures Continue To Mount israelstreet.org

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trying to shift the onus of terrorism is pretty low brow stuff. Undoubtedly, it is heresy to you to suggest that their actions have no excuse what-so-ever. You prefer to go bak to the Crusades to justify the acts of hate, intolerance and those who share your pathology.

FFS, grow up and grow a pair!

Being realistic.

You tell me to grow up. You've just written a few simple lines. Hardly an argument and NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to back yourself up with.

Also, trying to attack the person and not what they're actually saying, really classy debating, sort of the level someone who hasn't finished high school would probably be able to do quite well.

So.... Do you have a point to make? And are you willing to back it up?

If not, then leave me alone.

 

[Meathead]

Trying to shift the onus of terrorism is pretty low brow stuff. Undoubtedly, it is heresy to you to suggest that their actions have no excuse what-so-ever. You prefer to go bak to the Crusades to justify the acts of hate, intolerance and those who share your pathology.

FFS, grow up and grow a pair!

Being realistic.

You tell me to grow up. You've just written a few simple lines. Hardly an argument and NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to back yourself up with.

Also, trying to attack the person and not what they're actually saying, really classy debating, sort of the level someone who hasn't finished high school would probably be able to do quite well.

So.... Do you have a point to make? And are you willing to back it up?

If not, then leave me alone.

Sorry Weirdo, spouting off a few lines is not an argument. If you wish to spend a lot of time regurgitating the endless dogma of so many dingbat lefty sites, then you can expect to be called on that. If you saw me droning on the same way, would you consider that effective debate? If I were to fill posts with hackneyed mantra, would you respect me?

Think about it.

I wouldn't respect myself, but then we all establish our own standards however low-brow they may be.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry Weirdo, spouting off a few lines is not an argument.

So don't do it and come back when you have something to say. Goodbye!

 

[Meathead]

Sorry Weirdo, spouting off a few lines is not an argument.

So don't do it and come back when you have something to say. Goodbye!

And you are certainly welcome back whenever an original thought or a fleeting moment of lucidity cuts through whatever protective buffers you've built to protect the mantras you hold so dear.

Ciao for now then.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You wanted me to explain my comments because your retarded as didn't understand it. And no explaining simple comments isn't part the point of a debate.

Yes the mid-term elections will tell the tail.

WHY? WHY THE HELL WILL MID TERMS TELL THE TAIL OF YOUR POXY ARGUMENT?

What's a poxy and why are you mad?

Poxy is an adjective. It means small and rubbish.

Why am I mad? Hmm. I ask you a question. You reply not answering the question, but making some other comment. Then you just keep avoiding the question.

Would you possibly be able to answer the question as to why the mid term elections will tell the "tail" of this mythical "liberal ideology" thing you're going on about?

You could also respond to the post that I went to all the effort writing and you have just completely frigging ignored too.

Repeating things 100 times doesn't make it true. If you want to debate, then debate, if not, tell me and I won't bother with you.

Okay?

You asked a dumb ass question that has already been answered.

I said the mid-term elections will tell the tail after I said that Obama's policies are a failure. You asked why would the mid-term elections tell the tail, well it's because Obama's policies are a failure.

How difficult is that for you to understand?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You asked a dumb ass question that has already been answered.

I said the mid-term elections will tell the tail after I said that Obama's policies are a failure. You asked why would the mid-term elections tell the tail, well it's because Obama's policies are a failure.

How difficult is that for you to understand?

Tale, it's tale. Tail is what a dog has.

I know what you said. But it isn't much, it doesn't in any way shed any light on the matter for me. I was kind of hoping you'd be able to, you know, explain it better, with actual substance and stuff like that.

Sorry if I thought you might actually be able to do this.

Even after what you've said, the first thought in my find is "WHY?"

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You asked a dumb ass question that has already been answered.

I said the mid-term elections will tell the tail after I said that Obama's policies are a failure. You asked why would the mid-term elections tell the tail, well it's because Obama's policies are a failure.

How difficult is that for you to understand?

Tale, it's tale. Tail is what a dog has.

I know what you said. But it isn't much, it doesn't in any way shed any light on the matter for me. I was kind of hoping you'd be able to, you know, explain it better, with actual substance and stuff like that.

Sorry if I thought you might actually be able to do this.

Even after what you've said, the first thought in my find is "WHY?"

It isn't much?

Obama said his policies were on the ballot. If the Republicans sweep the Dems then it shows how fucked up his policies were.

Life isn't complicated, neither was my original statement.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It isn't much?

Obama said his policies were on the ballot. If the Republicans sweep the Dems then it shows how fucked up his policies were.

Life isn't complicated, neither was my original statement.

I get the point you're making. This isn't the problem. I'm asking you WHY this is the case. Politics is more complicated that you seem to take it for.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It isn't much?

Obama said his policies were on the ballot. If the Republicans sweep the Dems then it shows how fucked up his policies were.

Life isn't complicated, neither was my original statement.

I get the point you're making. This isn't the problem. I'm asking you WHY this is the case. Politics is more complicated that you seem to take it for.

Dude that was as simple as I could make it. I'm sorry your IQ is so deflated that you cannot grasp the idea that the mid-term elections are a referendum on Obama's policies and the result of the election will show whether Americans like or dislike the direction he's taking us via his policies.

And no.... it's not complicated unless your IQ hovers at or below 70.

 

[Jarhead]

I don't try to belittle people on this board. Most do it themselves.

If you don't see why, in a sarcastic why, that statement was redundant....then you don't know what redundant means. That is not belittling you. It is stating fact. Not knowing the definition of a word is not an indication of ones intelligence, or lack of it. There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English Language. No one can know the definition of all of them.

Look up redundant. Edumucate yourself.

Oh God, it's so painful. I squirm.

Why not just say you don't want to debate? Why not just say you're here just to piss around, then I wouldn't have to bother in the first place.

Why are you so angry. I simply pointed out to you that your statement was, in a sarcastic way, redundant. I debate plenty on this board. There was no debate regarding your statement. You said it, it was pointed out it was redundant, you denied its redundancy and used the reason being that Bush was still alive....so I pointed out to you that it seemed clear that you did not know the meaning of redundant for the living status of Bush had absolutely no play in the redundancy of the statement.

You need to lighten up man. Enjoy life.

 

[deltex1]

If obama wasn't failing, he wouldn't be obama. Isn't that one of them thar enigmers?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It isn't much?

Obama said his policies were on the ballot. If the Republicans sweep the Dems then it shows how fucked up his policies were.

Life isn't complicated, neither was my original statement.

I get the point you're making. This isn't the problem. I'm asking you WHY this is the case. Politics is more complicated that you seem to take it for.

Dude that was as simple as I could make it. I'm sorry your IQ is so deflated that you cannot grasp the idea that the mid-term elections are a referendum on Obama's policies and the result of the election will show whether Americans like or dislike the direction he's taking us via his policies.

And no.... it's not complicated unless your IQ hovers at or below 70.

Again, I understand what you're saying, I don't agree.

This is impossible.

There are so many people on this board who can't explain or back up their views.

Whatever, another person wasting my time.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Job well done by Bush, so his paymasters think.

Can you not step outside of yourself and see the blatant motivated reasoning you're engaged in. To an outsider it appears you need to decide whether you want to go forward as an honest assessor of facts or as a twister of facts which support your predetermined conclusion to blame the West and Bush in particular for being the instigator of horrendous crimes against humanity.

I'd suggest you go with the route of letting the facts guide you to a conclusion rather than contorting facts to fit a conclusion.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Tom Clancy has used a lot of different scenarios, he even had Japs flying planes into US buildings. I’m not saying this is black and white, that ALL enemies were Soviets now ALL enemies are Arabs.

You missed the point. In the novel, Clancy used Muslim terrorists as the villains. Hollywood didn't want to insult Muslims and so they swapped the villains, now Eurotrash, NeoNazi millionaires became the villains who set off a nuclear bomb in America.

A lot of what these groups are is just anger, anger at their rubbish lives, and they take it out on those around them, and even each other. (Griffin, buddies with David Duke, Stephen “Don” Black and Preston Wiginton, some of the US’s biggest far right fascists, racists and anti-Semites, has even been kicked out of his own party recently.)

This is no different than leftist agitating to increase taxes on the wealthy. Driven by envy and dissatisfaction with their own lives. That's the nature of poltics.

One thing is to fight immigration, another thing is to call for the killing of immigrants, or placing them in lower status or whatever.

No sorry, you don't get to lock in ill-gotten gains. When a people have multiculturalism imposed on them by socialist elites via a silent coup, then they have a right to reset society to the condition in which it existed prior to the imposition. No one has called for killing immigrants. France has implemented plans to pay them to leave. Others are calling for forced repatriation.

Telling a woman who is being raped that she has a right to stop a gang rape from arising but no right to stop the ongoing rape, that the ongoing rape must be locked in and permanent, is a ludicrous construction for a just position.

But while Islam and Nazism and Communism are rotten at their core, so is what is happening within the US.

I agree.

This fight for oil, the scramble for resources that doesn’t take into account human beings, the claim that it’s all for democracy, liberty and freedom while the US govt goes around the world destroying all three of these, it’s plain disgusting.

I agree.

The US is making Islam more radical, more despicable.

Don't be like a woman, transfer agency for female transgressions onto men. Islamic peoples and governments have agency, they're not simply reacting to the West. Islam is not more radical due to the actions of the West. Islam is radical because of its core beliefs. There's a reason that Islam is famous for its Bloody Borders - almost everywhere Islam has a significant presence we find conflict with non-Islamic peoples. War with the Jews, war with the Christians, war with Islamic sects, war with Hindus, war with Buddhists, war with animists, war with Russians, war with Spanish, war with Canadians, war with Americans.

It itself is continuing in the same vain that happened in the Cold War, supporting dictators, taking down democratically elected leaders, doing whatever it can to make sure its ideology is first in the world, and pretending its ideology is something different.

I agree. On topic, the Bush-Gore debate on nation building:

MODERATOR: Well, let's stay on the subject for a moment. New question related to this. I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?

GORE: Can you run through the list again?

MODERATOR: Sure. Lebanon.

GORE: I thought that was a mistake.

MODERATOR: Grenada.

GORE: I supported that.

MODERATOR: Panama.

GORE: I supported that.

MODERATOR: Persian Gulf.

GORE: Yes, I voted for it, supported it.

MODERATOR: Somalia.

GORE: Of course, and that again -- no, I think that that was ill-considered. I did support it at the time. It was in the previous administration, in the Bush-Quayle administration, and I think in retrospect the lessons there are ones that we should take very, very seriously.

MODERATOR: Bosnia.

GORE: Oh, yes.

MODERATOR: Haiti.

GORE: Yes.

MODERATOR: And then Kosovo.

GORE: Yes.

MODERATOR: We talked about that. Want me to do it with you? Lebanon.

BUSH: Make a couple comments.

MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

MODERATOR: What about Lebanon?

BUSH: Yes.

MODERATOR: Grenada.

BUSH: Yes.

MODERATOR: Panama?

BUSH: Yes. Some of them I've got a conflict of interest on, if you know what I mean.

MODERATOR: I do, I do. The Persian Gulf, obviously. And Bosnia. And you have already talked about Kosovo. But the reverse side of the question, Governor, that Vice President Gore mentioned, 600,000 people died in Rwanda in 1994. There was no U.S. intervention, no intervention from the outside world. Was that a mistake not to intervene?

BUSH: I think the administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation, no one liked to see it on our TV screens, but it's a case where we need to make sure we have an early warning system in place in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda. And that's a case where we need to use our influence to have countries in Africa come together and help deal with the situation. The administration, seems like we're having a great love fest tonight, but the administration made the right decision on training Nigerian troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda, and so I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.​

And here's the part on nation-building, which speaks directly to your concerns about busy-body Americans:

MODERATOR: So what would you say, Governor, that somebody would say hey wait a minute, why not Africa, I mean why the Middle East, why the Balkans, but not Africa, when 600,000 people's lives are at risk?

BUSH: Well, I understand, and Africa is important. And we've got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade, and there are some -- Vice President mentioned Nigeria is a fledgling democracy. We have to work with Nigeria. It’s an important continent. But there's got to be priorities, and Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons, as is Europe and the Far East, our own hemisphere. And those are my four top priorities should I be the president, not to say we won't be engaged nor work hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity. I thought the best example of a way to handle the situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians, support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.

MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, do you agree with the governor's views on nation building, the use of military, our military, for nation building as he described and defined it?

GORE: I don't think we agree on that. I would certainly also be judicious in evaluating any potential use of American troops overseas. I think we have to be very reticent about that. But look, Jim, the world is changing so rapidly. The way I see it, the world is getting much closer together. Like it or not, we are now -- the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All these other countries are looking to us. Now, just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn't be, doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere. Now, both of us are kind of, I guess, stating the other's position in a maximalist extreme way, but I think there is a difference here. This idea of nation building is kind of a pejorative phrase, but think about the great conflict of the past century, World War II. During the years between World War I and World War II, a great lesson was learned by our military leaders and the people of the United States. The lesson was that in the aftermath of World War I, we kind of turned our backs and left them to their own devices and they brewed up a lot of trouble that quickly became World War II. And acting upon that lesson in the aftermath of our great victory in World War II, we laid down the Marshall Plan, President Truman did. We got intimately involved in building NATO and other structures there. We still have lots of troops in Europe. And what did we do in the late '40's and '50's and '60's? We were nation building. And it was economic. But it was also military. And the confidence that those countries recovering from the wounds of war had by having troops there. We had civil administrators come in to set up their ways of building their towns back.

MODERATOR: You said in the Boston debate, Governor, on this issue of nation building, that the United States military is overextended now. Where is it overextended? Where are there U.S. military that you would bring home if you become president?

BUSH: First let me just say one comment about what the vice president said. I think one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is we let our military atrophy. And we can't do that. We've got to rebuild our military. But one of the problems we have in the military is we're in a lot of places around the world. And I mentioned one, and that's the Balkans. I would very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we can't do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO. No one is suggesting that. But I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground. And there is an example. Haiti is another example. Now there are some places where I think -- you know, I've supported the administration in Columbia. I think it's important for us to be training Columbians in that part of the world. The hemisphere is in our interest to have a peaceful Columbia. But --

MODERATOR: The use of the military, there -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?

BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the Korean peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious.

GORE: I don't disagree with that. I certainly don't disagree that we ought to get our troops home from places like the Balkans as soon as we can, as soon as the mission is complete. That's what we did in Haiti. There are no more than a handful of American military personnel in Haiti now. And Haitians have their problems, but we gave them a chance to restore democracy. That's really about all we can do. But if you have a situation like that right in our backyard with chaos about to break out and flotillas forming to come across the water, and all kinds of violence there, right in one of our neighboring countries there, then I think that we did the right thing there. And as for this idea of nation building, the phrase sounds grandiose. And, you know, we can't be -- we can't allow ourselves to get overextended. I certainly agree with that. And that's why I've supported building up our capacity. I've devoted in the budget I've proposed, as I said last week, more than twice as much as the governor has proposed. I think that it's in better shape now than he generally does. We've had some disagreements about that. He said that two divisions would have to report not ready for duty, and that's not what the joint chiefs say. But there's no doubt that we have to continue building up readiness and military strength. And we have to also be very cautious in the way we use our military.​

It's interesting to observe how 9/11 flipped Bush's position to match that of Gore's. We still see that playing out today with ISIS. People in the West want to shape the Middle East into a Western mold rather than to allow them to develop their own societal model with the ISIS Caliphate.

The point is that the US is doing things that aren’t good, it’s causing more problems in the world than anyone else.

Part of this, a huge part in fact, arises simply from American stature. The Global System is of American design. America works to maintain that system. If America had the power of Canada, then the Global System would carry the imprimatur of China and Saudi Arabia, for instance. Human rights would be devalued, forced adherence to ideology would be normalized, the Charter of Human Rights would likely not even exist, the Soviet Union would likely still be in power, etc.

What you need to suss out is the degree of American policy which goes beyond what is necessary in keeping the world operating on an American vision of global affairs.

At home rights and freedoms and democracy are at a second rate level compared to various countries in Europe.

If you have a plan on how to ethnically cleans America to bring about the same level of cultural homogeneity found in Europe, then I'm eager to read your plan.

But abroad is where the US laughs at democracy, freedom and liberty.

Because American foreign policy experts are kind of idiots because they've been captured by ideology and are not guided by realism, nor informed by religious and cultural details of foreign lands.

Taking down democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez in the 2002 coup d’etat while at the same time supporting Saudi Arabia, you couldn’t make it up.

Are you some kind of Chavez truther? People have their own damn agency, you know, everyone is not a puppet of America.

Well I was in Constantinople airport in April, I haven’t visited the actual city since 2009.

Christian Constantinople ceased to exist in 1453.

However the point you seem to be making is that in history things have changed. Sure they have, however this happened before the contemporary era for this issue that I’d say started about 200 years ago, more or less.

My point is that Islam is not solely reaction, it's proactive. Islam didn't come to hold it's territory in the world by reacting to foreign initiated invasions, repelling the invaders and capturing their lands. Islam is designed as a vehicle for war.

I’m talking about the vilifying of Islam by Bush, the making of a common enemy for the US and the west to get behind, and for all of this to change massively. Bush changed the game.

You seem to be divorced from reality. It's guys like me who vilify Islam, not idiots like Bush:

 

[frigidweirdo]

Job well done by Bush, so his paymasters think.

Can you not step outside of yourself and see the blatant motivated reasoning you're engaged in. To an outsider it appears you need to decide whether you want to go forward as an honest assessor of facts or as a twister of facts which support your predetermined conclusion to blame the West and Bush in particular for being the instigator of horrendous crimes against humanity.

I'd suggest you go with the route of letting the facts guide you to a conclusion rather than contorting facts to fit a conclusion.

So what have I twisted?

Bush went to war in Iraq. The US only goes to war if there is an interest for the US to go to war. Getting rid of a leader who they consider potentially dangerous at some point in the future is not reason enough, there are plenty of those.

At the time of Bush's ascension to the White House there were 4 OPEC countries who were anti-USA out of 12 members.
Venezuela, first, Iran, fourth, Iraq, fifth and Libya, 9th, all have proven reserves much higher than the US.

Facts. The US helped a coup d'etat against Hugo Chavez in OPEC member Venezuela in 2002.
The US invaded OPEC member Iraq in 2003.
The US bombed and saw the leader of OPEC member Libya in 2011 after heavy pressure from McCain.
Iran has been hit by strong sanctions from the US.

Chavez tried to implement a plan that would see OPEC members reduce their production in order to increase oil prices. This clearly goes against US interests.

Have you seen anything twisted so far?

I'll continue when you agree that everything here is in order.

 

[rdean]

Happy days. Every day that I wake up happy, means Obama is not.

That equates to a positive moment for our country

Good times

Won't be much longer now......

-Geaux

Strange, I felt terrible about the failure of the Bush and GOP policies. Even today, I'm terribly sad about the damage they did to, not only this country, but to the world. Sad and embarrassed that such ignorant people could be voted into having so much power.
And the GOP positions of today on science, education, health care, the good of the middle class and so on leave me terribly sad.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Tom Clancy has used a lot of different scenarios, he even had Japs flying planes into US buildings. I’m not saying this is black and white, that ALL enemies were Soviets now ALL enemies are Arabs.

You missed the point. In the novel, Clancy used Muslim terrorists as the villains. Hollywood didn't want to insult Muslims and so they swapped the villains, now Eurotrash, NeoNazi millionaires became the villains who set off a nuclear bomb in America.

I have a big problem with part of your argument. This film was PRE-9/11. It was released in 2002. The film was being written in 1999, this was 2 years before 9/11, it was before Bush. The film stopped filming in June 2001.


To use Wikipedia


The Sum of All Fears film - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


“On the "making-of" DVD extra, director Alden Brown said that it was purely for elements relating to the plot, as Arab terrorists would not be able to plausibly accomplish all that was necessary for the story to work. In addition, the terrorists in the book received significant aid from elements inEast Germany, a country which hadceased to existbefore the novel was even published. The groupCouncil on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR) did mount a two-year lobbying campaign that ended on January 26, 2001, against using "Muslim villains", as the original book version did.[9]Director Phil Alden Robinson is quoted in a letter to CAIR saying, "I hope you will be reassured that I have no intention of promoting negative images of Muslims or Arabs, and I wish you the best in your continuing efforts to combat discrimination".[“


So, yes, there were elements of keeping away from Islam.

“Screenwriter Dan Pyne claimed that the decision to not use Arab terrorists was "possibly because that has become a cliché. At the time that I started writingThe Sum of All Fears,Joerg Haiderwas just starting to come into play in Austria. And simultaneous with that, I think, there was some neo-nationalist activity in Holland, and there was stuff going on in Spain and in Italy. So it seemed like a logical and lasting idea that would be universal."[11]It has also been noted that a larger percent of profits stems from international audiences, and American filmmakers work to avoid alienating large segments of this customer base.”


However it seems that it was more a commercial decision than one based on political reasons, and certainly at the time, Islam wasn’t the common enemy, it wasn’t the big evil.


So I’m going to say I disagree on this particular film.

A lot of what these groups are is just anger, anger at their rubbish lives, and they take it out on those around them, and even each other. (Griffin, buddies with David Duke, Stephen “Don” Black and Preston Wiginton, some of the US’s biggest far right fascists, racists and anti-Semites, has even been kicked out of his own party recently.)

This is no different than leftist agitating to increase taxes on the wealthy. Driven by envy and dissatisfaction with their own lives. That's the nature of poltics.

There’s not necessarily much difference between what the far right was doing, but why all the change? Part of the change was because of a changing situation, more Muslims in these countries and an increase in problems. However there was a big change in policy among many far right groups in Europe, a change that was in part due to what Bush was saying.

One thing is to fight immigration, another thing is to call for the killing of immigrants, or placing them in lower status or whatever.

No sorry, you don't get to lock in ill-gotten gains. When a people have multiculturalism imposed on them by socialist elites via a silent coup, then they have a right to reset society to the condition in which it existed prior to the imposition. No one has called for killing immigrants. France has implemented plans to pay them to leave. Others are calling for forced repatriation.


Telling a woman who is being raped that she has a right to stop a gang rape from arising but no right to stop the ongoing rape, that the ongoing rape must be locked in and permanent, is a ludicrous construction for a just position.

I’m not sure how much you know about the far right in Europe, but they certain have talked about killing. In fact some do. In Germany it was happening.


BBC News - Germany s new breed of neo-Nazis pose a threat


“Germany's new breed of neo-Nazis pose a threat”
“This comes after a public outcry following revelations in November that a neo-Nazi cell had apparently been able to go on a nationwide spree of racially motivated murders over several years, under the noses of the German intelligence services.

The group of three are being held responsible for the deaths of eight Turkish and one Greek immigrant between 2000 and 2006, as well as a German policewoman in 2007.”

They’re not even sure how many people have been killed because of the far right.


Then you have the Norwegian killer, he killed young members of the left wing party, but in response to Muslims in Norway. How many Muslims have been killed? Who knows?


There is certainly a lot of crazy stuff going on with immigration, however groups like the BNP aren’t just anti-immigration, they’re anti a lot, even themselves because they have a tendency to really hate each other.

The US is making Islam more radical, more despicable.

Don't be like a woman, transfer agency for female transgressions onto men. Islamic peoples and governments have agency, they're not simply reacting to the West. Islam is not more radical due to the actions of the West. Islam is radical because of its core beliefs. There's a reason that Islam is famous for its Bloody Borders - almost everywhere Islam has a significant presence we find conflict with non-Islamic peoples. War with the Jews, war with the Christians, war with Islamic sects, war with Hindus, war with Buddhists, war with animists, war with Russians, war with Spanish, war with Canadians, war with Americans.

So you don’t think there are consequences to actions?


The problem with your argument is that you’d have to show that Islam is completely radical. There are 1 billion Muslims on the planet and most of these people live in peace and don’t do anything.

The numbers of people fighting in the name of Islam has increased massively in the last decade.


http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/uploads/5/51/248-8_confidence_in_bin_laden.gif


Here’s some stats that suggest a lot of Muslims aren’t extremist at all.


http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/uploads/1/14/Support_for_suicide_bombing.gif


Here’s another. The funny thing here is, that if you were to word a question in a specific way, you’d probably get higher figures for US citizens being in favor than for Muslims. Not necessarily with suicide bombing, but with attacking with guns in the event of an invasion of foreign troops, ie similar to Iraq or Afghanistan, then you’d get results that might “prove” (in the loosest sense) extremism in the US.


Muslim Statistics Terrorism - WikiIslam


There’s a lot of interesting stuff on here. It all needs to be taken into context of course.


““Converts are often on the look-out for something to which they can dedicate themselves, and they like to experiment with radical environments. They seek out a strong ideology that gives them meaning and structure,” Neumann said.

“In Norway, converting to Islam is probably one of the most rebellious things you can do,” he added.

Neumann further noted that western converts, aside from women who converted when marrying Muslim men, were overrepresented among jihadists.”


This is talking about those in the west (specifically in Norway, the link to this is about Norwegian terrorist converts).


You say Islam has wars everywhere there are borders. Does Christianity not have lots of wars where there are borders? The whole of the Americas are Christian. Europe has Christian borders with Muslim Morocco, no violence there, borders in the Balkans, well it was the CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX SERBS who went in and tried to ethnically cleanse/commit genocide against the Muslims in Kosovo. Not only that the 90% Muslim population in Kosovo was given 50% of the jobs in the region and Serbs got the other 50%. All schooling was to be done in Serbian, many kids didn’t go to school, others went to school run by volunteers in flats with no resources, most important industries, like power stations were moved out of the region, and so on. The was a history of friction, there always has been in that region, both Christian and Muslim.

Another border with Turkey/Greece and Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey just hate each other.
Then you have Russian borders with Muslims, especially Chechnya, and Russia prevented independence for Chechnya when many other parts split from the USSR, but Kosovo got the sheet kicked out of it.


Here I failed to see anything about Islam that suggests a major problem other than typical problems between neighbor that has been happening in Europe since forever.


Russia has managed to start wars in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and would love to do so elsewhere. Yet I guess you’d blame the Muslims but not the Russians in Georgia and Ukraine for causing a lot of these problems then?


You can look at Africa, but hey, TIA. South Africa controlled Namibia and fought them and the Angolans. Mozabique and Angola had major civil wars as a result of Portugal pulling out. You had the Genocide in Rwanda, you have the civil war in the DRC, you have so many problems there, and all that I have presented are in Christian majority areas.

So how aren’t you going to have problems in Nigeria, Somalia and other places? People only give a flick about Somalia because of the oil routes from Kuwait, Iraq and Iran, they don’t give a sheet about the DRC because they just kill each other and get on with it. It just happens the Muslims are in the way of the oil, and the Christians aren’t. The Nigerians have major human rights abuses, especially in oil rich areas, who gives a damn as long as we get our oil?

So if you want to tell me that Islam is a major problem, you're going to have to do better than you have done.

There are problems with SOME Muslims using Islam as a tool, Jihad works, why not use it? The US has a professional army with more money being spent than the next 9 militaries put together. Jihad has its uses, and they use it for a reason.