• 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

I doubt they would agree. Obama increased drone strikes and has brought down a lot of the terrorist leaders. ANd, he did all this without starting a new war.

You can't keep apologizing to terrorists and expect their cooperation....
 
You obviously do not grasp what I have tried to say. Let me put it this way. The Supreme COurt has put limits to the freedom of speech. Study the courts views on that limit. I wasn't stating my opinion. I was showing facts that there is a limit to freedom of speech.

I have a better idea: post the link to the SC decision that says speech that incites riots isn't protected. Thanks in advance.
 
You based it on a misunderstanding of what they said.

They didn't say speech which incites violence or a riot is illegal. If you wish to make it illegal, that's a different choice. And that the reasons behind that wish are just as valid when it comes to the abortionist and the violence abortion incites.

I said nothing about speech being made illegal. I said people can be held accountable for inciting a riot with speech.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060913085 said:
Relationships will be jeopardized? That's all you got for foreign policy?

Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop viewing the world through your partisan glasses. Morsi was talking tough, Obama called him personally, Morsi's butthole tightened up like a drum and he IMMEDIATELY started singing a different tune. So therefore, whatever Obama said in total, got the job done with Morsi.

Those walking around with their eye's shut have no place in telling others to wake up.
 
One thing that gets ignored in this is that in a lot of countries without free speech, many don't understand American free speech, so when **** like the movie comes out, it may seem like it is "government-approved" as it would have to be if it came out in a country with censorship. Just thought it's a point worth addressing.

Why would you think that's being ignored?
 
Libyan official says Benghazi attack was an organized, 2-part attack by militants on Americans - The Washington Post
The second assault took place several hours later and targeted the safe house — a villa inside the grounds of the city’s equestrian club — killing two Americans and wounding a number of Libyans and Americans.

Also, I didn't say the American soldiers lost the Iraq war. The Iraq war was doomed from the start. Our soldiers did the best they could. THey were put into a losing situation.

They defeated the enemy and installed a democratic government. How did they lose?
 
I for one, am glad we have a level headed guy in the White House, it's natural for people to scream for blood which is what's happening in this thread, hell we have some idiots screaming for Mecca to be destroyed, the middle east to be nuked...

To not give in to those voices, is leadership.

The ones screaming for blood are never going to agree, but cooler heads must prevail in this crisis.

All this will be done in a couple of weeks most likely, and we can go back to arguing about a few percentage points increase for taxes on rich people and arguing about marxism again.
 
The two excuses for Islamic behavior tend to be, "Not all Muslims are terrorists" or "It's only a small number committing the murderous acts".

The question is, if it is just a small number why can't the larger number control them? It's not as though they are trying to hide what they're doing

A few signs will only fool those who want to be fooled, who will continue to make excuses for the the rabble.

Because the larger number only disagrees with the methods, but not the motivation.
 
Why would you think that's being ignored?

Really? Have you not noticed the ****-storm that is going on? What was once a serious situation involving the death of an American ambassador has now turned into a giant political hack-fest.

Or maybe I just missed if. Hopefully someone is talking about it, and I just haven't seen it yet.
 
And they were not just bombed to death,it took 15 million Allied/Soviet troops to beat them down in addition to bombing them....Germany at the time had around 70 million people...
Imagine what it would take to beat down 1.5 billion....

Which Mid-East country has a population of 1.5 billion?
 
Really? Have you not noticed the ****-storm that is going on? What was once a serious situation involving the death of an American ambassador has now turned into a giant political hack-fest.

Or maybe I just missed if. Hopefully someone is talking about it, and I just haven't seen it yet.

That doesn't mean it's being ignored; it just means it's pretty irrelevant to the points being made. One doesn't discuss the electrical system when examining what flattened the tire.
 
I do know that Libya is cooperating with the US to bring the killers of Americans to justice.

Really? Because they said so? In fact they knew about this long before it happened. Now they are going to bring themselves 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.

Sure. Obama will lead fro his behind and the billions in aid will continue.
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.

If the US were a real threat to world peace there would be world peace. But it is no threat to anyone because they would rather be liked than respected. So now they have neither.
I have yet to see Obama issue one apology. If I am wrong, then please give me some link to a quote.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," the statement read in part. It went on to say that the U.S. "firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

As Americans they should be defending free speech, not condemning it. And of course Embassies do not put forth statements like these without the knowledge of the Sec. of State or the President.
 
Which Mid-East country has a population of 1.5 billion?

Do you think the worlds 1.5 billion Muslims would stand by after Mecca was bombed?
 
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.

The only US Ally in the Middle East is Israel. And the US President won't even meet with their leader.

BHO has gone to too many fund raisings and missed far too many Intelligence meetings to be of much use anymore.
 
I have a better idea: post the link to the SC decision that says speech that incites riots isn't protected. Thanks in advance.

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."
 
They defeated the enemy and installed a democratic government. How did they lose?

When Bush ordered Sadam to be taken out, that created a power vacuum that started a civil war. At that point, our troops were put into a situation that was a losing propsition for the US no matter how it was dealt with.
 
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

So, the next time someone burns an American Flag, me and some of my friends can start a riot, in protest the flag burners will be punished and flag burning made illegal?

Is that what you'rre telling us?
 
BHO has gone to too many fund raisings and missed far too many Intelligence meetings to be of much use anymore.

WTF....how the hell do you know what meetings the President of the US attends?

Paul
 
When Bush ordered Sadam to be taken out, that created a power vacuum that started a civil war. At that point, our troops were put into a situation that was a losing propsition for the US no matter how it was dealt with.

The only way to lose a war, is by the military forces fighting the war. Our troops did a fantastic job of defeating an enemy that the defeatests said couldn't be defeated.
 
You obviously do not grasp what I have tried to say. Let me put it this way. The Supreme COurt has put limits to the freedom of speech. Study the courts views on that limit. I wasn't stating my opinion. I was showing facts that there is a limit to freedom of speech.

I grasp completely what you are saying and strongly disagree with it. I assume you grasp what I am saying and disagree with my position.

The Supreme Court has indeed put limits on free speech but not in the case of making movies. If you know of a legal precedent that limits criticism of Muslims or Islam then lets hear it.
 
Back
Top Bottom