• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

Can you show me a quote where Obama has apologized to the terrorists that killed out people? I haven't heard it.

Perhaps you don't get out much. Are you unfamiliar with the Obama Apology Tour where the one term Marxist flexible with our enemies Barrack Hussein Obama bowed to and kissed the ass of just about any leader of any Islamic nation? Do you think that was helpful in dealing with people from those same nations who want to subjugate us?
 
I doubt the terrorists think of drone strikes as being an act of a sissy commander-in-chief. Yes, my son agreed to go to the middle east, but that doesn't mean people here in the US unwilling to fight for this country can sit fluel the flames and not hold some accountability for how that effects out troops in harms way.
As for waging war to win them, are you talking about the way Bush waged war? We didn't exactly win any grand prize for our efforts.
Of course it is. Waging war solely with UAVs is the sissy way of war. We cannot ever win without boots on the ground.

He took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. You should consider his oath. Your words counter his actions.
 
Perhaps you don't get out much. Are you unfamiliar with the Obama Apology Tour where the one term Marxist flexible with our enemies Barrack Hussein Obama bowed to and kissed the ass of just about any leader of any Islamic nation? Do you think that was helpful in dealing with people from those same nations who want to subjugate us?

Well, I seemed to have missed that, that is why I asked for quotes.
 
120913122919-protestspread-iraq-horizontal-gallery.jpg


Iraqi protesters burn Israeli and U.S. flags during a protest Thursday. The U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and three others were killed during a protest outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday.....snip~

Thank you for all the shots of the peaceful protesters, but I don't believe they are the subject brought to us by the OP. Peaceful demonstrations of ire are not a problem, it is the violent ones. And the "waste the mother-****ers" attitude presented by some is mostly aimed at the violent protesters, not the peaceful ones.
 
How would our Constitution be at play in Libya?
Does anyone have any sense anymore?

Sorry. I didn't realise you meant Islam should be banned in Libya, and that professing that the call to prayer is the sweetest should should be escorted to the Libyan border. :roll:
 
Of course it is. Waging war solely with UAVs is the sissy way of war. We cannot ever win without boots on the ground.

He took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. You should consider his oath. Your words counter his actions.

LOL sue it is. So I suppose the manly way to approach a war on terrorists is to go in to a country that is cooperating with us and bomb their people. That should bring about a good reputation for the US, like the way it did when Bush went to war. Oh, and it's ok to have our men and women killed in the process all so Obama can appear more manly. I don't see how Obama has violated the constitution. Maybe you can enlighten me?
 
Of course it is. Waging war solely with UAVs is the sissy way of war. We cannot ever win without boots on the ground.

He took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. You should consider his oath. Your words counter his actions.

No matter how far technology goes in the fighting of wars, you have not taken anything until a kid with a rifle is standing on it.
 
LOL sue it is. So I suppose the manly way to approach a war on terrorists is to go in to a country that is cooperating with us and bomb their people.
Bomb. Strafe, shoot, engage as necessary. Why create men of straw to do battle with? Did Libya, the host country, defend our embassy? If not then this was an act of war. We can choose to respond and change that regime. I believe we should.

That should bring about a good reputation for the US, like the way it did when Bush went to war.
The reputation for fierceness in the face of attack is something we want. Bush did just fine on the war. In my opinion the one term Marxist snatched likely defeat from the jaws of likely victory by withdrawing too soon. It is what appeasers do.

Oh, and it's ok to have our men and women killed in the process all so Obama can appear more manly.
Other than Obama being a sissy this has nothing to do with her. We wage wars to win them. Do you get that? We want the other poor, dumb bastards to die for their countries.

I don't see how Obama has violated the constitution. Maybe you can enlighten me?
I was referring to your son taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Yet here you are asking that we take away some of our rights so that others are not offended. So your words dishonor your son's actions.
 
Sorry. I didn't realise you meant Islam should be banned in Libya, and that professing that the call to prayer is the sweetest should should be escorted to the Libyan border. :roll:
It goes along with the regime change. Islam is a big part of the problem. So we ban it for the next fifty years. Or a hundred. We put in a secular government and we teach them how to live in a civil society.
 
Oh look you have pictures?

I have pictures too.

JuanColeGraphic.jpeg


d73b12b65278e631099c191bce3f8ad2_600x400.jpeg


Libyans-hold-peaceful-demonstrations-decrying-the-Benghazi-attacks-PHOTOS.jpg

Yes, I was hoping someone would post these.

The fools spreading violence are just violent fanatics that don't represent the entirety of the population in the regions where all this is occurring. But, of course, the pictures of protests and bombed fast food restaurants get more attention -- that kind of stuff always does.
 
Yes, I was hoping someone would post these.

The fools spreading violence are just violent fanatics that don't represent the entirety of the population in the regions where all this is occurring. But, of course, the pictures of protests and bombed fast food restaurants get more attention -- that kind of stuff always does.
Imagine how much attention a smoldering hole where Mecca once was would receive.

We should do it just for the dramatic effect.
 
LOL sue it is. So I suppose the manly way to approach a war on terrorists is to go in to a country that is cooperating with us and bomb their people. That should bring about a good reputation for the US, like the way it did when Bush went to war. Oh, and it's ok to have our men and women killed in the process all so Obama can appear more manly. I don't see how Obama has violated the constitution. Maybe you can enlighten me?

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.
 
LOL sue it is. So I suppose the manly way to approach a war on terrorists is to go in to a country that is cooperating with us and bomb their people.

Which Islamic led countries where the riots are occurring are cooperating with the US?
That should bring about a good reputation for 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.
 
Wrong idea. Select one place. Destroy it. Completely. I think Mecca is the right target. Create a list of Islamist "holy" places. One riot, one place. Even swap. You destroy a Burger King. We destroy a Mecca. Give the people enough warning to depart of they choose to. Otherwise arrange the meeting of the Islamist with Allah.

Then let's convert the survivors to Christianity at the tips of spears if necessary.

I hope you're being facetious here.
 
Bomb. Strafe, shoot, engage as necessary. Why create men of straw to do battle with? Did Libya, the host country, defend our embassy? If not then this was an act of war. We can choose to respond and change that regime. I believe we should.


The reputation for fierceness in the face of attack is something we want. Bush did just fine on the war. In my opinion the one term Marxist snatched likely defeat from the jaws of likely victory by withdrawing too soon. It is what appeasers do.


Other than Obama being a sissy this has nothing to do with her. We wage wars to win them. Do you get that? We want the other poor, dumb bastards to die for their countries.


I was referring to your son taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Yet here you are asking that we take away some of our rights so that others are not offended. So your words dishonor your son's actions.

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.
 
Yes, I was hoping someone would post these.

The fools spreading violence are just violent fanatics that don't represent the entirety of the population in the regions where all this is occurring. But, of course, the pictures of protests and bombed fast food restaurants get more attention -- that kind of stuff always does.

Yet, the rest of the people of the region are doing nothing. The people pictured, protesting the goofy asses, are a small handful of people. Where the hell is everybody else?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom