|
Post by John Wilson on Aug 25, 2010 11:45:13 GMT -5
so if the west can also be objective then the problems will be fixed in the middle east. If only that were true. The problems in the Middle East go far back beyond the 60 years that the US has had any world influence. Unless you are talking about the influence of Rome, Greece, England, France, Holland, Morrocco, Egypt and later the Soviet Union. Then again, the problems in the Middle East can also be traced to Nebuchadnezzar. Not sure if you thought about that statement very well before you wrote it, Engin. I understand it is very popular to blame every problem in the Arab world on the West, but it was not all making carpets and Kum Ba Yah before white people showed up. I know you are not saying this, I am just using humor to make a point.
|
|
|
Post by Giles Russell on Aug 25, 2010 11:56:43 GMT -5
He got elected because, of "white guilt" (fools that thought we would all sing joy to the world if they elected a "1/2 black man") and because, minorities actually went out and voted for once (IMO simply because he was black). It drives me crazy that they have blind alleigience to this fool because he "looks" black. He's only 1/2 African communist, and 1/2 irresponsible white girl. I say irresponsible because, he was raised by his rich, white grandparents (grandma was vp of a bank in Hawaii) and went to Harvard for god's sake. You don't do that through the EEOC or a Pell grant. He can hardly say he's been down with the struggle and kept down by "the man". So, I'm puzzled at why no matter what he does 90% of minorities will support him. Minorities need a real leader to wake them up and show them that this democratic party that they are so beholden to has made them all slaves of the government and keeping them from realizing the American Dream. I don't care about Obama's skin color. I will vote in a second for a conservative black person. I don't care what his religion is either. We know it's radical, racist preaching from Jerimiah Wright's pulpit....I do not like his background, politics or his radical views.
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 12:43:28 GMT -5
John, i am not saying that Arabs are innocent.but do you realise that western world divided Arabs (for future controls) into parts by separating them from Ottoman Empire (lawrence provocations) after realising the energy sources on Arabia? western world had no business on this land.then Hitler massacring the Jews and Palestenians being punished because of this was the next thing over there.the HOLY LAND that we talk about was our (Turks) land for centuries till 100 years ago.it was the land that Jews and Christian and Muslim shared for centuries in a peaceful way and i can prove what i say by serious sources. we,Turks were stabbed from our back by the Arabs during the early 1900s.so i dont put trust in Arabs. my opinions are not represanting Arabs.consider it as an opinion of someone who wants peace.someone who recognises the existence of Israel but also recognises a free Palestine.both are the children of Abraham..seriously John,no nation continued to be the most powerful forever.there will be a time that US will not be as strong as today.so a peaceful solution can be permanent by a fair judgement. US now is strongest but once they gave tax to Ottoman on the Meditterian Sea,and those agreements are the only agrements which was written with a foreign language in the history of US.we were a big empire as you are today.so no one knows the future.. below is the map of Ottoman in 1700 century. yellow part is Britain,purple part is France,light blue is Austria,blue part is Venice,orange is Spain,pink part is Polish-Lithuanian and the red part was Ottoman.so hard to predict the tomorrow..
|
|
|
Post by ericmyler on Aug 25, 2010 13:41:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 25, 2010 14:01:10 GMT -5
in my country there are ethnic (Turk 85%-Kurd 15%) and religious divisions (sunni 80%-shia 20%) that effect the results of election.in USA is there any such thing like black,white,mexican or protestant,catholic,mormon etc that effect the desicion of the voters?
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Aug 25, 2010 14:03:24 GMT -5
Engin,
Without a doubt. Times change as does the balance of power.
When people work with each other one-on-one often they begin to see each other as equals and operate fairly between them. Unfortunately, countries cannot always do this. Peace is a code word for relative safety. Safety is provided by keeping your own nation's best interest in mind. Often this requires doing some ugly things that one person would not do to another.
You bring up America's involvement with the Mujahadeen and with Saddam. In both cases you are correct. But there is a larger picture. The US was at war with the Soviet Union since the 1950s. The war was fought everywhere on the globe, and the shooting occurred by proxy. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, Honduras, Nicuragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan War with the Soviets, Iran - Iraq War... all of these were wars between the US and the USSR. Make no mistake.
Most of the terror groups in the Middle East (Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida) and other groups such as the Kmer Rouge, Bader Meinhoff, and other fringe groups were developed by the USSR to attack US interests. Yes, there are other factors at stake but the USSR was smart enough to recognize tha the enemy of your enemy can be your friend. So the USSR funded these groups, trained them, equipped them, and used them.
The US did the same thing with the San d'Anistas, the Mujahadeen, and other rebel groups. We found people who had a common interest in hating the USSR and we used them.
Very dirty stuff. But that is war. It is called the Cold War, but it was a real war and anyone who thinks it did not involve killing millions of people is very naive. The US and the USSR fought a global war against each other for 50 years. It continues today at a very low level. Russia still funds Iran and Hezbollah. Shepherds in Iraq didn't figure out how to blow up IEDs with cell phones by themselves.
When you see rebels in Africa using Russian AK47s that is no accident. Those guns didn't come from Walmart.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Aug 25, 2010 15:32:03 GMT -5
But then again many, many Liberals love to demonize the Founding Fathers by calling them nothing but "rich, white, slave owning, people hating bigots" - but once again its very impressive for such an evil bunch of people created such an amazing country. I for one am thankful for that. i get so sick of how liberals[esp judges] who like to try and change meanings of words around ----------saying this or that is what the founding fathers meant by this word or that word so they can twist things around for their own benefit why did Obama feel the need to say America is no longer a christian nation? ----------sometimes i think some liberals like Obama know little about history or what kind of men our founding fathers were--------the majority were christian and there are many quotes from them to support that
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Aug 25, 2010 15:35:33 GMT -5
so if the west can also be objective then the problems will be fixed in the middle east. If only that were true. The problems in the Middle East go far back beyond the 60 years that the US has had any world influence. Unless you are talking about the influence of Rome, Greece, England, France, Holland, Morrocco, Egypt and later the Soviet Union. Then again, the problems in the Middle East can also be traced to Nebuchadnezzar. Not sure if you thought about that statement very well before you wrote it, Engin. I understand it is very popular to blame every problem in the Arab world on the West, but it was not all making carpets and Kum Ba Yah before white people showed up. I know you are not saying this, I am just using humor to make a point. kinda reminds me of Gods prophecy of Ishmael saying he would be a wild man and his hand would be against every man and every mans hand would be against him-----------to me it seems this has held true all the way down through history
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Aug 25, 2010 15:38:47 GMT -5
Engin, Without a doubt. Times change as does the balance of power. When people work with each other one-on-one often they begin to see each other as equals and operate fairly between them. Unfortunately, countries cannot always do this. Peace is a code word for relative safety. Safety is provided by keeping your own nation's best interest in mind. Often this requires doing some ugly things that one person would not do to another. You bring up America's involvement with the Mujahadeen and with Saddam. In both cases you are correct. But there is a larger picture. The US was at war with the Soviet Union since the 1950s. The war was fought everywhere on the globe, and the shooting occurred by proxy. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, Honduras, Nicuragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan War with the Soviets, Iran - Iraq War... all of these were wars between the US and the USSR. Make no mistake. Most of the terror groups in the Middle East (Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida) and other groups such as the Kmer Rouge, Bader Meinhoff, and other fringe groups were developed by the USSR to attack US interests. Yes, there are other factors at stake but the USSR was smart enough to recognize tha the enemy of your enemy can be your friend. So the USSR funded these groups, trained them, equipped them, and used them. The US did the same thing with the San d'Anistas, the Mujahadeen, and other rebel groups. We found people who had a common interest in hating the USSR and we used them. Very dirty stuff. But that is war. It is called the Cold War, but it was a real war and anyone who thinks it did not involve killing millions of people is very naive. The US and the USSR fought a global war against each other for 50 years. It continues today at a very low level. Russia still funds Iran and Hezbollah. Shepherds in Iraq didn't figure out how to blow up IEDs with cell phones by themselves. When you see rebels in Africa using Russian AK47s that is no accident. Those guns didn't come from Walmart. good statement it seems that Russia couldnt destroy this country but its being destroyed from within
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Aug 25, 2010 15:46:13 GMT -5
in my country there are ethnic (Turk 85%-Kurd 15%) and religious divisions (sunni 80%-shia 20%) that effect the results of election.in USA is there any such thing like black,white,mexican or protestant,catholic,mormon etc that effect the desicion of the voters? This is a great question. The big difference is that US Law is secular. Unlike Jewish or Muslim nations where the law is derived fundamentally from scripture, US Law does not. Therefore, voters in the US tend to be issue-voters. Even within religious groups the vote is fractured. Ethnicity is a huge division in voting here. Blacks and Hispanics (except for Cubans) tend to vote as a massive block for the Democrats. Cubans vote conservatively (Republican). Other groups like Asians tend to be conservative and vote Republican. Whites are almost evenly split, with the majority voting conservative. Whites in urban areas (big cities) tend to vote Democrat while out in the country whites are predominantly Republican. It also varies by state. States in the northeast with huge workers' unions tend to vote Democrat while States that rely on agriculture are usually Republican states. Keep in mind these numbers are generalities. The big split in America is Liberal versus Conservative. The problem is that for many years the only two real political parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. These parties have a mixture of people in them because neither party does a great job of representing either Liberals or Conservatives. For example: George Bush (both father and son) were Republicans, but were far from Conservative on many issues. Bill Clinton (Democrat) began his first term as a hard-Left Liberal and the Democrats were punished hard in elections two years later. Because of this, Bill Clinton moved to the center for the most part where domestic policy is concerned. John Byerly made the best point so far: The US is a nation of 350 million people divided up into 50 states. You cannot compare us to any country. It is more accurate to compare the US to Europe where there are multitudes of ethnicities, political interests, and regional differences.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Aug 25, 2010 16:01:29 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, Bush and the majority of his administration should be tried for war crimes. I'm sure the majority of the world would agree with me also. So Chris how many terms did you serve in the Military? What were your observations while performing duties in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afganistan? Certainly your vast information came from first hand knowledge and not the liberal media creating more horror films. I personally never served or observed. I have heard from multiple people who did terms over seas that there is severly foul things going on that the news doesn't depict. Then again maybe they were brain washed before they were deployed. Careful what you say when it cheapens millions of peoples careers and makes sacrificed lives taken in vain. No I didn't serve, what does that have to do with caring about what our soldiers are sent to die for? I'm not cheapening anything, that is their jobs. If anything, I'm cheapening the administration that sent them there. Just so we're clear, Bush used UN resolution from the first Gulf War as justification for the invasion. That makes perfect sense. What's weird is that they had already come to the conclusion of invading Iraq in July of 2002: downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdfA few educational links to refute the Glen Beck..i mean George Bush...i mean Dick Cheney propaganda you all are swallowing ;D: Obama's Birth Certificate: www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.htmlLegality of Iraq Invastion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_WarIraq Resolution: Check out the voting! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_ResolutionUnited Nations Security Council and Iraq War: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_IraqFalse Flag for War: www.v911t.org/FalseFlagforWar.phpHow about the Torture Memos that were released: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_MemosBush and Cheney admitted on TV that they broke Laws of the Geneva Convention. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_ConventionI know that some of these are Wikipedia links. If you want me to find the direct sources I'd be glad to.
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Aug 25, 2010 16:18:11 GMT -5
Bush used the UN Resolution from the first war because it was still in effect. It was a resolution. The UN Security council voted on it, what.... about 100 times before we went in?
Congress gave the President authorization to go in. Since only Congress has the authority to declare war, that ship has sailed. They could call it whatever they like to pretend they didn't authorize war, but it was just that. Proof? Only Congress can approve funding for the war. They funded it every time it was asked for. They continue to fund it.
|
|
|
Post by John Byerley on Aug 25, 2010 16:21:55 GMT -5
Bush & Cheney maybe - but Beck doesn't come close to being lumped with the other two.
99.9% of every letter on his show can be "FACTCHECKED" online from many many sources.
He disects and pays very close attention to our country's history - and how it effects us now. He was very unpopular 5 years ago for challenging The GOP, BUSH, and Talk radio on many issues.
I'll admit his theatrics get on my nerves sometimes, but thats who he is. But hes on the money day in and day out. He points out FACTS that most media outlets including others on Fox News won't touch. No one in the liberal media will even touch refuting what he says - they just try to discredit him as a person, like they do anyone else who gets in their way.
He singlehandedly got Van Jones XXXXXXXXX'ed from the Obama administration. He exposes people and situations for what they are and gives Americans at least SOMEthing to go on with these issues where normally there would be no insight.
I personally don't swallow ANY pills, besides Vitamin C and a multivitamin.
I do appreciate the way Beck run's his show. And the attention to historic detail. He like any person, in the past has made mistakes, and is a flawed human. But hes on the money 99.9% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Aug 25, 2010 16:30:42 GMT -5
Look,
I'm no fan of George Bush, either. But the broken-record arguments against him are tired and weak. The Democrats controlled Congress for the last two years of his Presidency. They did nothing but rubber stamp his policies at every turn. Ironically, it was after the Democrats took control of both houses that the economy tanked. If we're going to cast aspersions let's throw them at everyone who deserves it. The Democrats could stop any vote in the Senate for four years before they took power of both houses. They didn't.
If Bush is a war criminal then Obama is, too. Since Obama has basically done zero to change course. In fact, he was the one screaming that it was dumb to go into Iraq because the real war is in Afghanistan. Now that he's President it took him two years to follow his general's advice and increase troop levels there. He even fired the former general because one of the general's subordinates stated the obvious that this white house is full of buffoons.
Then Obama appoints the VERY GENERAL HE OPPOSED IN IRAQ to run the war in Afghanistan.
Stupid is as stupid does. It's been two years. At some point this moron in the White House has to become responsible for his own bad decisions. Bush is not running for re-election but you wouldn't know it because this dumbass Obama claims that Bush makes all the decisions in Washington. (Not the Democrat congress who has been in control for four years now, and parity in the Senate for four years before that?)
|
|
|
Post by John Byerley on Aug 25, 2010 16:32:56 GMT -5
Furthermore - who owns factcheck.org?? IMO they are FAR from the unbiased group you would look for to VALIDATE Obama's birth certificate. Considering the TIGHTKNIT group that is Obama, Ayers, and the Annenberg's foundation. Like I said I don't care about the certificate - but that was not a good example. They reached LIBERAL status years ago.
|
|