SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

Another woman president (Finland) with what some people call "a raghead":

http://www.idea.int/arab_world/images/CIMG0006.jpg

0 Replies

Re: SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

Aimus wrote:

I'm voting for Fred Thompson. I think he will do well in the White House and don't think he will let anyone "tell" him what to do. He's one of those people that must think first about what they are saying or doing. I'm from Arkansas, and I would Absolutely NEVER vote for a Clinton. Anytime we flushed our toilet, we were taxed for it. Let's not even get started about the alleged use of government to do things we wouldn't let our children do (even if it's Bill's definition of non-sex). (I'm also censoring myself!) I think Hillary knows all and she's using all she can get. I'm ready for a stable world. There might not be world peace, but stability is always a "good" thing. I want muslim leaders of the middle eastern countries to be able to shake our president's hand. They will not be able to with a woman president.

Interesting take. I might agree with you that Hillary may not be the best person to lead us to a stable world, but for different reasons, certainly not that she is a woman.

0 Replies

Teeny;

In your haste to heap ad homenims in your post, you forgot Golda Mier of Israel. Now SHE was middle east region. :wink:

Halfback

0 Replies

... and Benazir Bhutto was president of Pakistan, a muslim nation.

0 Replies

A quick clue to me is that my primary fear is that we bomb Iran - the logical development of years of stupidity. I don't think anywhere near enough of the candidates think that is dumb in many ways.

0 Replies

Ossobuco:

I'm more worried that Israel will do the pre-empting rather than us. From a purely military perspective, Iran presents a more viable "Clear and Present Danger" to them. Despite all the hype about Israel being our surrogate, they have proven over the years to be quite independant in their actions when they feel threatened, even to the extent of attacking one of our intelligence ships in '67. (Yeah, I know, it was "an accident". At least that is the "official" story.)

Frankly, the fact that Iran might acquire nukes, while of serious concern, is not nearly the "Clear and Present Danger" we make it out to be. At least to us. Any country in the world with nukes knows that if they hit us, our retaliation would be swift and deadly. While target theory was not an area I dealt with during my Intelligence career, I expect Iran could be set back some 400 years with the payload of one stealth bomber, or one ship's worth of Tomahawks, or any of the other wonderous means we have to deliver "The Wrath" with. I can think of no country's leadership who is so crazy as to desire the complete destruction of his/her country.

The problem is going to be Israel. If, say, Iran hits Israel. Will our Government honor our commitments to that country? Or will we dance while "Rome burns"? I wonder if Israel is wondering too....... Confused

Our steadfastness in "commitments" to other countries has been somewhat spotty since '72 or so. Sad

Halfback

0 Replies

Re: SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

fbaezer wrote:

teenyboone wrote:
Indira Ghandi, also a Middle Eastern woman!

Have a look at the maps, please.
India is not in the Middle East.

Whether it is or isn't, is not the point. Go back and read the post. Someone posted photos of arabs, not exactly shaking hands, but clearly with women world leaders and for another the phrase "middle east" was unknown, until after WWII. What was known as North Africa has been renamed Middle East, instead of the continent the country is physically on!

Since you are in Mexico and by your surname, don't appear to be a US Citizen, I question your point for being here.

0 Replies

Yeh, I agree with a lot of what you say, half back, yet I worry, oh, on A)bombing. I'm usually quiet, hardly post on politics for months at a time, but I am probably the primary or amongst the major hate-bombs persons here, the despair about them being on many levels. And then follow up invasion, just how imbecilic are we.
Of course, being me, I would not like B) Israel doing that either.

I'm way back on other pages. I don't get who we think we are, the semi-sole possessors of knowledge and capabiiity or need. We kabloomed on their territory and take charge with our armament and money, and we get all surprised that the "cradle of civilization" countries of this time don't like it, countries we have not a clue of that I can see, countries that (mostly) didn't invite our swell help.

On Israel, I started out years ago being quite pro and have moved away from that.

I remember in the late sixties, a friend came back from a trip and said, you know, there are two sides.. that might have been in '70.

So, I'll allie with those looking for connection between sides, on both sides.

I know there are more than 2 sides, 'both sides' is a figure of speech'.

0 Replies

Re: SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

teenyboone wrote:

fbaezer wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
Indira Ghandi, also a Middle Eastern woman!

Have a look at the maps, please.
India is not in the Middle East.

Whether it is or isn't, is not the point. Go back and read the post. Someone posted photos of arabs, not exactly shaking hands, but clearly with women world leaders and for another the phrase "middle east" was unknown, until after WWII. What was known as North Africa has been renamed Middle East, instead of the continent the country is physically on!

Since you are in Mexico and by your surname, don't appear to be a US Citizen, I question your point for being here.

I see you didn't like me pointing out your ignorance.

1. If one wants to make a point, it's better to be informed. Putting India in the Middle East plays against your arguments (on which I agree, BTW).
2. I was one of the posters who posted photos of arabs with women world leaders. Please notice who you are attacking.
3, You question me being where? In an internet site? Discussing US affairs on a thread started by a Dutch who lives in Hungary?
4. And what about my last name? If my last name was Smith, then I'd be allowed to speak?
Good grief, if these prejudiced censors are the liberals, I don't want to meet the fascists!

0 Replies

Oh, and re the thread, that our future presidential types, men or woman, black or white, are all-saber rattling to varied extents drives me nuts. Well, not all. Those with no seeming chance among the democrats are not so much.

0 Replies

I suppose I should explain that I'm a woman. My father was head of photography for the bikini bomb tests.

He didn't teach me to be anti bomb. And yet, he was the first person to comment negatively on the US forays of my young life - he didn't like Kennedy, suddenly, all those years ago, even though he'd taken me to meet his plane, at a beginning campaign stop for Kennedy (sure, I have the button).

Who knows what he'd think by now - he'd be 101.

I do remember he said that it was arrogant to think countries weren't ready for democracy. I remember that as a statement I didn't really get (I might have been ten), about a situation in Africa.
I can also see disagreeing with him, now, re pushing our ways...
I simply don't know, but I'm chary re bombing our democracy concepts onto other's noggins.

Oh, and the oil bit.

0 Replies

Ossobuco;

I hear ya, pal! I was merely trying to point out the pure military ramifications of the situation. Not the political so much.

I'd love to be able to suggest a solution for that troubled segment of the world, but better men than I have been trying for years to no avail. Sad

Halfback

0 Replies

Welcome, Halfback, by the way...

and, Teeny, you've got yourself an alligator.

0 Replies

(I don't know that Halfback was directly replying to me, given timing, so let's assume he (likely he) doesn't just agree with all I said, may or may not.)

0 Replies

I get there has been a giant digression.

See ya in a few months...

0 Replies

Osso:

Nope, was timing. (I usually don't call women, "Pal")

...and I was agreeing. I'm not a "bomb" fan myself.

If we were required by circumstances to "get some payback" for 9/11, there were other ways to do it without requiring our invasion of two soverign countries and the expenditure of "Gazillions" of dollars. (Not to mention throwing stones at an already angry bees nest!) (Read: Middle East).

I am generally a pacifist. However, even the most pacifistic minded group on earth (philosophically-wise anyway), Buddists, were required to develop self-defence techniques against "predator" minded fellow humans.

We are what we are, we humans. And like FINN's post above, if we become like the lambs, then we would not be humans. Some of the earliest codified laws have remedy for murder (Obviously a problem since forever!) but self defence has always been allowed. From the personal level, to the tribal level, to the group level, to the nation level, to the region level, to the world level, it is all "War", writ large or writ small.

Ya doesn't have to like it, but there it is.

Halfback

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

A quick clue to me is that my primary fear is that we bomb Iran - the logical development of years of stupidity. I don't think anywhere near enough of the candidates think that is dumb in many ways.

Hillary voted yes on declaring Iran's Republican Guard to be a terrorist organization -- that clears the way for military action. Edwards and Richardson aren't in the Senate so wouldn't vote on it anyway; Obama sat it out.

Wish he would've voted, but FYI, in terms of "yes" vs. abstain.

Dodd and Biden voted "nay." (I do like both of them.)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
A quick clue to me is that my primary fear is that we bomb Iran - the logical development of years of stupidity. I don't think anywhere near enough of the candidates think that is dumb in many ways.

Hillary voted yes on declaring Iran's Republican Guard to be a terrorist organization -- that clears the way for military action. Edwards and Richardson aren't in the Senate so wouldn't vote on it anyway; Obama sat it out.

Wish he would've voted, but FYI, in terms of "yes" vs. abstain.

Dodd and Biden voted "nay." (I do like both of them.)

The 'yes' and the 'absent' both bother me. My understanding is that the vote has only symbolic heft. And Hillary and Webb appear to be following up with a bill "that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization" http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284618

But this administration operates not on settled law (or precedent or tradition or truth) but rather upon marketing techniques to craft some degree of consensus they deem adequate to get away with whatever it is they wish to do.

In this new paradigm, symbolism becomes very important.

0 Replies

Blatham:

I haven't been here long, but having run across your comments in various topics (not that we see eye to eye all the time), I have to admit that I DO like your style.

Respect is paid where respect is due.

Halfback

0 Replies

teenyboone
teenyboone, haven't you noticed that A2K is made up of posters from around the world? Many of them are very wise, especially the one from Mexico you attacked. Such statements as yours signals the rest of us to ignore your posts---unless you smarten up.

BBB

0 Replies

SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know