Page 18 of 65 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 647

Thread: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

  1. #171
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by Hairytic View Post
    Yes, Libya did defend out embasy and our people. Libyans died trying to save our people.
    What Libyans died protecting our people?

    Bush did horrible on the wars, that is why we are in so much debt and so hated in the Middle East. We can't solve all of our problems in the Middle East with war.
    They loved us before the wars?

    We didn't win the Iraq war and we haven't won the Afganistan war. We lost men, money, and reputation. We lost more than we won, that is why I say we didn't win those wars. I never said we should take away our rights. However, people should realize how their inflame these situations. Also, freedom of speech was limited constitutionally by the Supreme Court. If speech is designed to inflame and it causes deaths, those who inflamed a situation to the point of it causing deaths can be held accountable for their part in the situation. Like it or not, freedom of speech has its limits.
    This is the defeatism I've spoken about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #172
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by L0neW0lf View Post
    Rofl, beating at straws, intentionally dishonest and shoddy; I see nothing has changed with you.

    Read the statements I made and then go read the poll again, while I do take all these polls of Arabs from Americans and American organizations with a grain of salt, the staggering percentage of people against American aid in that poll is consistent with the people I've met throughout my years in Egypt.



    I can't bring my self to care about Americans or even Egyptians to be honest, am only telling as it is, you should try that sometimes.
    You were factually incorrect and misrepresented the results of the poll. Whether you did that intentionally or through negligent is of no consequence. The facts speak for themselves the people questioned were of 15 years of age or older and numbered 1000. That does not represent a nation or a decision by a government it is merely fluff. Indeed, the age of majority in Egypt is 21 years old, the very idea of asking a 15 year old is representative of the reliance and significance on this poll even if it were fairly represented by you.

  3. #173
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by Hairytic View Post
    Yes, Libya did defend out embasy and our people. Libyans died trying to save our people. Bush did horrible on the wars, that is why we are in so much debt and so hated in the Middle East. We can't solve all of our problems in the Middle East with war.
    We didn't win the Iraq war and we haven't won the Afganistan war. We lost men, money, and reputation. We lost more than we won, that is why I say we didn't win those wars. I never said we should take away our rights. However, people should realize how their inflame these situations. Also, freedom of speech was limited constitutionally by the Supreme Court. If speech is designed to inflame and it causes deaths, those who inflamed a situation to the point of it causing deaths can be held accountable for their part in the situation. Like it or not, freedom of speech has its limits.
    So, just to be sure I am clear here, if someone makes a movie that offensive to someone else and the offended party kills someone, then that movie should not be allowed?

    Cool, anyone have an unregistered rifle I can borrow and when is the opening of the next Micheal Moore film, anti-Christian film or any film presenting a pro-liberal/socialist viewpoint? By your logic, I have just shown you how anyone could shut down any film based upon the believe that it might cause violence, it should be banned. By your standards, the last Batman film should of been canned and never shown again after the incident in Col.

    BTW, a lot of the animosity towards Bush was based upon the fact that Iraq was the counterbalance to Iran's actions. By taking out the one, we gave more power to the other. Many in the M.E. would of been far more supportive if we had taken out both. That disruption of balance of power in the region was the reason the coalition did not allow G. H. Bush to take down Iraq during the First Gulf War.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  4. #174
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by Hairytic View Post
    Yes, Libya did defend out embasy and our people. Libyans died trying to save our people. Bush did horrible on the wars, that is why we are in so much debt and so hated in the Middle East. We can't solve all of our problems in the Middle East with war.
    We didn't win the Iraq war and we haven't won the Afganistan war. We lost men, money, and reputation. We lost more than we won, that is why I say we didn't win those wars. I never said we should take away our rights. However, people should realize how their inflame these situations. Also, freedom of speech was limited constitutionally by the Supreme Court. If speech is designed to inflame and it causes deaths, those who inflamed a situation to the point of it causing deaths can be held accountable for their part in the situation. Like it or not, freedom of speech has its limits.
    I'll ask you what I've asked others:

    Should an abortionist be locked up because what he does enrages someone enough to bomb an abortion clinic?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #175
    Professor
    Hairytic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mississippi
    Last Seen
    10-01-13 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,592

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    And using UAV strikes has helped us with these countries how? In some cases, instead of a UAV strike, you use a special forces strike team. Exactly how much has using them improved our image and popularity in these countries and how much does it contribute to recruitment for the enemy?

    Bush's problems were not how he handled war, it was how he handled occupation and rebuilding. The invasions went fine, could of been better in some areas, but overall, not to bad. The problems came in later.

    During the invasion we bombed out bridges and roads, power plants and many other things necessary to achieve victory, but only plan that Rumsfeld had for after the conflict was "ok, we deposed him, everyone go home." Then it became, "ok, we need to help them, how. Yeah, lets use the same policies we used in Germany in '45. Never mind that Generals like Patton ignored many of the dictates of those policies. All Bath party members are fired from their positions and all members of the military/police are also fired for supporting Sodamed Insane. Never mind that many of them were only party members because it allowed them a job. Never mind that a lot of the military/Police were drafted or weren't politically active.

    As a result, large areas we left without power, water, food or law enforcement for long periods of time. Gee, I wonder why the quit cheering us and started shooting and throwing things at us?

    We imprisoned some without them ever having committed a crime and no evidence that they were hostile. And then we put poorly supervised Reserve/Guard Combat troops in charge of the prison instead of properly trained personnel and torture/humiliation occurred. Gee, again, I wonder why some of the ones once cheering us were not fighting us?

    In Afghanistan,

    We force farmers not to grow poppy for heroin (or is it Opium? I don't know a lot of specifics about illegal drugs), but we don't give them an other means to make a living and support themselves. Gee, why in the world would the start supporting the other side?

    We use bombers and UAV strikes to kill individuals, also killing all those around him. We blow up a whole wedding party to kill one guy because it is safer for our troops that way. Gee, I wonder yet again why people would turn against us? And did we actually make it safer for our troops than if we had sent in a couple squads and just took the one guy instead of killing so many?

    etc, etc, etc...

    No, it was not Bush's war efforts but his recovery efforts that were flawed. The US has never, to my knowledge, trained a force for the purpose of occupation. We do not have a corp that goes in following the troops and provides law and order, or the recovery of systems for helping the citizens meet their fundamental needs in a country we invade. The recovery and occupation of any country will always be a problem for us until we establish a trained, disciplined force specifically to meet that task.
    Air strikes by drones effective in Waziristan - Washington Times
    ““After the great increase in American drone attacks, we could see very few fighters, particularly foreign militants. Previously, they used to roam around in large numbers fearlessly,” shopkeeper Aslam Wazir told The Washington Times by telephone from Mir Ali.”

    It seems there has been no need to put boots on the ground. The drone strikes are being effective. The use of drone strikes is much more effective than boots on the ground because the drones can get into remote locations easily and they limit collateral damage. They also limit risk for our troops.
    The problems with the Bush was is that he took out the leader of Iraq leaving a power vacuum that he had no plans to deal with. The situation then erupted into a civil was in which we were in the middle of. It also took focus off of Aganistan which was the area the terrorists that committed the 9/11 attacks were thriving. Bush also lost focus on the terrorists and even said he wasn’t focused on getting Bin Laden. Obama put the focus back on the terrorists that threaten our country.
    Yes, I agree that we messed up the rebuilding and security of the people in Iraq. Had we not invaded them to begin with, it would be a non issue now. I can also see why they stopped cheering us. We stepped in to something that wasn’t out business.

    As for Afganistan, I have mixed feelings about that war. But, now that we are in it, I think the drone attacks are being much more effective because now the farmers can make a living again. If they grow drug crops, that is none of our business. We shouldn’t be carrying out drug war overseas. It is a sad side effect to any military action that collateral damage happens. We should only focus on terrorists and take out targets that threaten the US, IMHO. Sending in squads has it’s risks also. Collateral damage is just as likely with boots on the ground as opposed to using drones. It also puts our people at more risk.

    Basically, we had no business going into Iraq. That was the Bush war that could have been avoided. Occupation was inevitable in a war where we are taking out a leader. That was the biggest problem when it came to invading Iraq.

  6. #176
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,935

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I'll ask you what I've asked others:

    Should an abortionist be locked up because what he does enrages someone enough to bomb an abortion clinic?
    Perhaps one needs to weigh these things and decide for themselves?

    How many people get enraged enough over here to bomb clinics?

    How man people get enraged enough overseas to turn on our interests and threaten and kill Americans?

    By my count, a few whacko's are here who attack clinics with bombs. It looks like hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions in the Middle East are enraged and now the entire stability of that region because some irresponsible extremist wanted to renew a holy crusade of their own.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #177
    Professor
    Hairytic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mississippi
    Last Seen
    10-01-13 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,592

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    [QUOTE=Grant;1060913780]

    Which Islamic led countries where the riots are occurring are cooperating with the US?


    Why are you concerned about the 'good reputation' of the US? Maybe there'd be fewer Americans murdered if they had a bad reputation, just as the Muslims have. Then they'd quake in fear whenever an American was insulted in their media.

    It doesn't seem as though the Apology Tour enhanced America's reputation in the world at all.
    I do know that Libya is cooperating with the US to bring the killers of Americans to justice. Eqypt has a new government as well, and Obama and Clinton issued a strong warning to them and other countries to get these situations under control or the US will.
    I am concerned with the reputation of the US because I do not want wars to start in this country and I do not want the world to start to see the US as a threat to world peace. It will not end well for us if we start to wage war at every turn.
    I have yet to see Obama issue one apology. If I am wrong, then please give me some link to a quote.

  8. #178
    Professor
    Hairytic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mississippi
    Last Seen
    10-01-13 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,592

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    What Libyans died protecting our people?

    They loved us before the wars?

    This is the defeatism I've spoken about.
    When I first heard about the attacks I had heard that some Libyan security people had been killed also. However, it appears now that many where wounded and not killed. Some countries in the Middle East are our allies, so yes, some of these countries didn't turn against us because of the Bush wars. The people in Libya loved the ambassadar. They expressed that loved by having a time of mourning and showing signs expressing their love for Stephens.
    I know it's hard to accept that the war in Iraq was a huge failure and the war in Afganistan wasn't as effective as we had hoped it would be, but it is time to face the facts.

  9. #179
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    So, just to be sure I am clear here, if someone makes a movie that offensive to someone else and the offended party kills someone, then that movie should not be allowed?

    Cool, anyone have an unregistered rifle I can borrow and when is the opening of the next Micheal Moore film, anti-Christian film or any film presenting a pro-liberal/socialist viewpoint? By your logic, I have just shown you how anyone could shut down any film based upon the believe that it might cause violence, it should be banned. By your standards, the last Batman film should of been canned and never shown again after the incident in Col.

    BTW, a lot of the animosity towards Bush was based upon the fact that Iraq was the counterbalance to Iran's actions. By taking out the one, we gave more power to the other. Many in the M.E. would of been far more supportive if we had taken out both. That disruption of balance of power in the region was the reason the coalition did not allow G. H. Bush to take down Iraq during the First Gulf War.
    For those who might not catch on, there is no actual threat intended but an example of how a threat could be used. Should of thought of that at the time, doh.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  10. #180
    Professor
    Hairytic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mississippi
    Last Seen
    10-01-13 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,592

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    So, just to be sure I am clear here, if someone makes a movie that offensive to someone else and the offended party kills someone, then that movie should not be allowed?

    Cool, anyone have an unregistered rifle I can borrow and when is the opening of the next Micheal Moore film, anti-Christian film or any film presenting a pro-liberal/socialist viewpoint? By your logic, I have just shown you how anyone could shut down any film based upon the believe that it might cause violence, it should be banned. By your standards, the last Batman film should of been canned and never shown again after the incident in Col.

    BTW, a lot of the animosity towards Bush was based upon the fact that Iraq was the counterbalance to Iran's actions. By taking out the one, we gave more power to the other. Many in the M.E. would of been far more supportive if we had taken out both. That disruption of balance of power in the region was the reason the coalition did not allow G. H. Bush to take down Iraq during the First Gulf War.
    I think I made my self very clear. I never said people shouldn't be allowed to make films that insult people's religions. I simply said that if someone expressed their views in such a way as to incite riots, that person can be held accountable for any damage it causes. The first case heard by the Supreme Court on this was the case where someone yelled fire in a crowded theater. The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech is limited. I was not using my logic on this point. I was using the Supreme COurt's view of how freedom of speech can be constitutionally limited.

Page 18 of 65 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •