- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And expressing an opinion as well, sigh.Real freedom means the freedom not to care, sigh.
And expressing an opinion as well, sigh.Real freedom means the freedom not to care, sigh.
When any group behaves like Nazis, what's the harm in comparing them to Nazis? Why so sensitive in this area? Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood
I can agree with that. If only some weren't working overtime to make is so hard to vote perhaps we'd get a better turnout?
When any group behaves like Nazis, what's the harm in comparing them to Nazis? Why so sensitive in this area? Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood
Any similarity with their attitudes towards Jews? Censorship? A Master Religion?They didn't act like Nazi's. They were a minority crew trying to hold onto their power over a majority with extreme authoritarianist oppression. They were not pushing for race purity and pushing an expansion of a third reich. Not even close.
Greetings, poweRob. :2wave:
I've been voting for years in the same place, and we all know each other since it's a small town. I still have to show ID to comply with Ohio law. The first time I was asked a few years ago, I was surprised because he knew me, so I asked why, and the man keeping the sign-in book said "I have to ask my own mother to show her ID." *Okay, that's fair* Most of the people I know just show their driver's license, or any other State-issued card with a picture on it. I don't know what other States require, though.
Any similarity with their attitudes towards Jews? Censorship? A Master Religion?
Sending American troops into Afghanistan with politically correct rules of engagement that favor the enemy doesn't gain the respect of the troops.
If the troops can't fight a war without torture, rape, murder, indiscriminate killing, and desecration of the dead then perhaps it should operate without immunity.
Telling our troops they can't shoot at the enemy until they are already being shot at is PC ROE that favor the enemy.
As opposed to what? Shooting random people and hoping at least one of them actually is the enemy?
During WW ll the entire Pacific theatre and European theatre were one big free fire zone. That's how you win battles that leads to winning wars.
If the troops can't fight a war without torture, rape, murder, indiscriminate killing, and desecration of the dead then perhaps it should operate without immunity.
As opposed to what? Shooting random people and hoping at least one of them actually is the enemy?
I always thought he was a pretty square shooter. Its great to see and Obama surrogate tell the truth for once.
Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq | Fox News
October 2 2014
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is lashing out at President Obama’s inner circle for failing to secure a 2011 deal to leave U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively accusing the White House of sabotaging the talks – in turn, opening the door for the region to become a haven for the Islamic State.
Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.
er uh your opinion is required in the Obamacare forum. Anyhoo, Iraq not wanting US troops and refusing to give US troops immunity is not President Obama's responsibility. Thank goodness as a leader he didn't let the inevitable and incessant lies from the right about Iraq stop him from making the right decisions. I guess maliki just assumed he would be as weak willed and easy to manipulate as Bush. He was wrong.
I'm not as desperate to make the comparison as you are to deny it.Under Bathists... such oppression was far less. Christians existed in peace in Northern parts of Iraq. Jews... don't know. doesn't matter in context of Nazi's putting Jews on trains and then in ovens and gas chambers compared to that not happening in Iraq. Try as desperate as you might, there is no reasonable comparison.
Ok, lets just think about this for a minute. I mean, actually use the thing you were gifted with, or not gifted with and really think about what you just said. Maliki cant even defeat ISIS and force them to do anything. So if we decide we want combat troops in Iraq, we will have combat troops in Iraq. There is nothing Maliki or the government of Iraq could possibly do to us to keep us from placing troops in Iraq. HE CANT EVEN CONTROL HIS OWN COUNTRY!!! What exactly do you think Maliki would do if we decided to put troops there and one of them breaks a law we don't agree with being a law. Seriously, you think we would be forced to turn him over. NO!!!! HE CANT EVEN DEFEAT ISIS, so how in the heck is he going to force us to turn over a soldier for breaking a law in Iraq. Camon now, I was hoping people would be smart enough to see that both Maliki and Obama are not interested in US soldiers in Iraq and that is why they used SOFA as a scapegoat issue.
Yes, we are fighting for oil, but we are also fighting to free the people from the extremists. I think your inability to understand that a free society will ultimately be economically advantageous to the US. So the argument that oil is the only reason for war, is ignorant. The biggest economic gains America made was soon after WW2 and the Korean war. When the US liberated both Japan and Korea from their rulers and turned them into capitalistic countries that had strong ties with the US, we gained a lot. If we were able to remove the control of the leaders in the ME who are effectively stopping any progress of civilization there, then the ME and the US will profit greatly. All you have to do is pick up a history book and see how we transformed Japan and Korea after their respective wars with us and you will see the obvious advantage of transforming a government from a dictatorship type rule, to our system and then forming strong economic ties with it.
It is truly amazing that despite all the information available that there are still those too stubborn to understand that SOFA agreements are often designed to end in a successors term in case changes want to be made. The important gain was getting the first SOFA agreement as a precedent for successive Presidents, and Iraqi leaders, to follow.
Of course Obama had no intention of following any SOFA agreement and said so. His plan was always to 'bring the troops home' whther Iraq was stable or not. As it was he insisted it was 'stable', and a 'great achievement'.
First of all, Im not defending Bush nor the Iraq war or the Sofa agreement signed by Bush. Bush isn't president. Bush was no longer president when the SOFA expired. Obama was president and once he was sworn in, Iraq and the SOFA and everything else that comes with the job of president became HIS responsibility. He didn't do a very good job and could easily be argued to have made matter worse. Second, we don't elect a president to follow the will of the majority. He is elected to lead. And in that regard Obama has performed poorly as well.
So what? These are the same people who voted for Barrack Obama? Are you saying that foreign policy should be decided by public polling??
Since when does 'the will of the American people' guide foreign policy? They usually don't understand a thing except 'war is bad', and it must be explained what the long term consequence of what any decision might be. That's what leadership is intended to do.
Again it's clear you know nothing about SOFA and shouldn't even be using the term.
All of which is entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.
Indeed. And thereby helped bring ISIS into being.