2
   

Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?

 
 
PoetSeductress
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 02:46 pm
Re: Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
PoetSeductress wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
PoetSeductress wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
late to the thread as usual... although it is certainly the fault of the extremist pieces of **** who did the bombing, here's a tip... If you walk around the world like a bull in a China shop. telling everyone you're the only one that's right about anything.... taking credit for everything and expecting the world to play by rules you don't, then you'd better be prepared to also take the blame for everything that goes wrong.

I think it's time to let these people just slaughter each other and thin the herd personally. I nhave tried and tried to be empathetic to the ordinary citizen and part of me still is but this is not going to get better, gwb's bullshit isn't going to change anythiong. Even Jesus, who apparently directs gwb's every move, said you can't save the world.


I see. hmm... If you can't make everything go perfectly, why even try anything at all?


don't fall off that high horse sweetheart ....


Thank you, bluevein, I'll try not to. But even if I did, I would eventually get back on it again, learn from the mistakes, and ride better than before..


perhaps, perhaps not.


Self-determination is in my blood; it's how I was raised. Of course, I'm speaking only for myself, and can't speak for you or anyone else, in this regard. But it's something worthwhile to note, and can be applied to anything in life, including politics.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 06:21 pm
oralloy

Quote:
Our economic stability has nothing to do with what people use to pay for oil, and we don't care whether someone charges for their oil in Euros.

I think you had better take some economic lessons. The stability of the dollar has a hell of a lot to do with our economy. That's why Greenspan said the biggest threat to our economy is our trade deficit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/14/business/main1041725.shtml

Quote:
Iran is not a democracy.
Outside of Iraq it's more of a democracy than any other major oil producing country in the Middle East.

Quote:
Venezuela is a democracy, but Chavez may be working to change that.


Oh really? How so? He's up for re-election in December 2006. Has he done anything to cancel the election or are you hoping?

Quote:
The spread of Democracy is good.

That's not what the Israelis think. I don't think they're to pleased with the winner of the Palestinian elections.

You think free elections would be good for Saudi Arabia? What do you think the idiots who run our country would think of free elections in Saudi Arabia if they elected a government as hostile to America as Iran's. Thanks to Bush we have generated a great deal of hate in the Muslim world. With democracy you don't know what the government will be. It could be an Iran, a Chavez or a Humas.

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it and it'll bite you in the a**.
0 Replies
 
PoetSeductress
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 06:42 pm
xingu wrote:
...Thanks to Bush we have generated a great deal of hate in the Muslim world.


Let's see... Bush has caused the Muslim world to much hate. But when Clinton was in office, the Muslim world supposedly never hated, or if they did, it was a meager amount. Sound logic, I must say.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 06:56 pm
Makes sense to me
0 Replies
 
PoetSeductress
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 07:04 pm
Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
Intrepid wrote:
Makes sense to me


Surely you jest, Intrepid. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 07:42 pm
Clinton didn't try to bomb the Muslim countries into oblivion, did he?
0 Replies
 
PoetSeductress
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 07:56 pm
Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
Intrepid wrote:
Clinton didn't try to bomb the Muslim countries into oblivion, did he?


There were many radical Islamist haters and terrorists who were out to kill, steal, destroy, and take over, long before Bush, Clinton, or anyone in recent history ever were born.

You might find this article interesting, Intrepid. It's a must-read:



The Long Bloody History of Islamic Terrorism
by Barbara J. Stock

The Sunday morning pundits preach that the terrorist attacks around the world continue because American troops remain in Iraq. These so-called "experts" claim that Iraq is a training ground for attacks in Europe and America. Have these armchair-terror-experts forgotten the 50-year Islamic training ground called Israel?

These "experts" also seem to believe that this split between so-called "moderate" Muslims and the Islamic terrorists is something new. These "experts" have missed the mark by about 1300 hundred years. The present Islamic terrorists are a result of the split within Islam between Muslims who wish to live in the 21st century, secular Muslims, and the followers of "True Islam" who want the world to be ruled by Islamic Sharia law with the Quran as the new world constitution.

The recent attack in London proves the line between a "moderate" Muslim and a terrorist is very, very thin. It seems with only a small dose of "True Islam" a peaceful Muslim can become a mass murderer.

Islamic terrorism started long before there was an Israel. Sunni and Shia Muslims have been killing each other since the death of Mohammed.

Centuries ago, Islam ruled a large part of the world and Muslims had spread out of the Middle East and moved across Europe, conquering all in their path. At Islam's pinnacle, the Ottoman Empire stretched from Egypt to the Black Sea and from the Persian Gulf to Hungary.

So what happened to the glorious Islamic empire? Today, Islam blames the Crusades, the Jews, Western culture, and Christians for its fall from power. In truth, the most destructive enemy that Islam has ever had was Islam itself.

As the world modernized around them, the Islamic leaders refused to move forward with the rest of the world. Firmly believing in Islamic superiority, the pompous ruling class of religious leaders planted the seeds of hatred towards the West as far back as the 1700s. The ruling Islamic religious leaders believed western inventions were evil things created by evil and inferior people.

Any attempt to modernize the empire was put down by the ruling Islamic body called the ulema which wanted to hold onto its power and maintain Islam in its pure state. This meant no non-Muslim influence of any kind.

It should be no surprise that the western advancements in warfare eventually overwhelmed the archaic ways of Islam. The Islamic dream of ruling the world, was over.

At the end of World War I, France and England carved up what was left of the once great Islamic Empire. All that remained was Turkey. It was the Islamic Turks who slaughtered over 1.5 million Armenian Christians. The Turks blamed the Armenian Christians for assisting in Islam's fall from power. Islam has a long history of blaming others for its failures.

The new leader of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal, wanted Turkey to join the modern world and insisted on a separation of mosque and state, something that infuriated the Islamic leaders. Kemal declared Islam the national religion but did not allow the controlling and backward ways of Islam to destroy the new country. The battle rages today in Turkey between the Islamic leaders and the secular government. Slowly, the Islamic leaders are winning.

By 1924, the glory days of Islam were over.

This inner battle for Islam stewed after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and Middle East came under the influence of western culture. Secular Arab governments, which accepted western modernization, drove the followers of True Islam into a murderous rage.

Today's terrorist movement started in 1928 with the founding of Ikhwan al-Muslimun, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to oppose the Arab secular governments that stripped the Islamic elite of its power. This group, led by Hassan al-Banna, felt no Islamic country should tolerate a secular government. Islam had always been the judge, jury, and executioner over the people.

This militant group armed and trained itself and became such a problem for the Egyptian government that the terrorist leader, al-Banna, was executed but this only elevated him to martyrdom. The movement grew in power and status.

In the 1950s, a new and extremely radical leader, Sayyid Qutb, convinced his followers that the Quran justified the killing of fellow Muslims. In his book, "Milestones," he encouraged a jihad to remove secular Muslim leaders and claimed it was the duty of all Muslims to return Islam to its former power and glory. Following strict Islamic law could only do this. Secular Muslims were put in a category with Christians and Jews?-they were infidels.

Sayyid Qutb was also executed by the Egyptians in 1966, but the Islamic terrorist movement grew and expanded and now has branches of loyal followers in over 70 countries around the globe and these Islamic terrorists are more than willing to kill for their cause.

The embarrassing defeat of Islamic/Arab countries by the lowly "monkey-Jew" in the 1967 Six Day War gave fuel to the Islamic terrorist movement. This humiliating loss to the tiny Jewish state was proof for Islamic terrorists that secular Islamic states were against all that was Islamic. Islamic countries were defeated by a people that True Islam does not even consider human.

Mu'ammar Qaddaffi seized power in Libya in 1969 and he used Libya's vast oil wealth to fund Islamic terror around the world. A decade later, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the secular government in Iran by taking the American embassy personnel hostage and keeping them as prisoners for over a year.

The 1980s saw the Iranian-backed terror group, Hezbollah strike American troops on a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon and the American embassy was bombed. The United States made the tragic mistake of leaving Lebanon, and the Islamists saw this as a sign of weakness, and a rash of attacks on Americans continued unpunished around the world for the next two decades.

True Islam had its golden moment on 9/11 when it succeeded in attacking the "great Satan" on its own soil. Their bragging and celebration was brief. The American response to that attack took the terrorists by surprise. Believing America was a weak paper-tiger, I believe the invasion of Afghanistan surprised bin Laden. The loss of Afghanistan enraged the Islamists. Afghanistan was True Islam's model for the world. Even more insulting was that the majority of Afghani people seemed to welcome the overthrow of the Taliban.

True Islam couldn't care less about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The fact Saddam is Muslim means nothing to them. He was a secular infidel. Iraqi Muslims who wish to remain under a secular government are slaughtered like sheep because they too are considered un-Islamic infidels. Radical Islam knows this may well be its only chance to subjugate the Iraqi people under strict Islamic rule and take possession of an oil-rich terrorist training base. If True Islam were to gain control in Iraq, it would immediately join forces with Iran to wreck havoc on the world.

Once a great power, Islam has now been reduced to training the gullible to strap bombs on themselves and blow up a bus or train full of civilians. Radical Islamic leaders have only one goal: To make Islam the only religion, and to put Islamic leaders in command over the entire population of the world. To accomplish this, western civilization, Christianity, Judaism, secular Muslims, and all other non-Muslim forms of religious beliefs, must be exterminated.

There has been one important adjustment in True Islam's plan. It no longer shuns modern weapons and technology. Indeed, Islamics believe that the detonation of nuclear weapons on American soil will bring them a quick victory. This is a serious miscalculation on True Islam's part. A very deadly miscalculation.

If one studies the history of Islam and its violent roots, it is not difficult to understand it. Islamists have killed millions of people over the centuries and killing millions more to accomplish the goal of total Islamic rule does not disturb them.

The number of moderate-secular Muslims is declining as true Islam spreads its rage and hatred to every corner of the world. Time is short. Iran may be only months away from obtaining nuclear weapons. There are reports that several nuclear weapons are already here and in place in America. There can be no signs of weakness from the western world. There can be no negotiations or deals made with True Islam. There can be no quarter given.

History has taught us one thing: It is us, or them. There is no middle ground with terrorists. True Islam has not changed in 1400 years. It is not going to change now.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 08:20 pm
poet :
if you want to meet some gentle muslims, take a cruise on one of the ships of the holland-america line (part of carnival cruise lines).
many of the ships crew are muslims - our last cabin steward's name was 'mohamed' - a pretty authentic muslim . i'd be hard pressed to find a more gentle and truly friendly people .

it's interesting that the article you have posted mentions lybia and qaddaffi . lybia has , of course, become an important supplier of light sweet crude (the best there is) to the western world and has been forgiveb its former transgressions.
hbg
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 08:33 pm
Re: Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
PoetSeductress wrote:
xingu wrote:
...Thanks to Bush we have generated a great deal of hate in the Muslim world.

Let's see... Bush has caused the Muslim world to much hate. But when Clinton was in office, the Muslim world supposedly never hated, or if they did, it was a meager amount. Sound logic, I must say.


PoetSeductress wrote:
There were many radical Islamist haters and terrorists who were out to kill, steal, destroy, and take over, long before Bush, Clinton, or anyone in recent history ever were born.

Yes, there were haters, extremist Islamists, then and now.

But anti-American revulsion among the population at large is now significantly bigger than 10 years ago.

Those things can both be true. One is not a refutation of the other.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 08:34 pm
What the invasion of Iraq has done is to gain more sympathy for the extremist. The extremist message is the West wants to invade and colonize the Middle East so as to control the oil.

Bush's invasion of Iraq is gives credibility to this argument. This is especially true in light of the fact that every reason Bush gave for the invasion was false.

Now Bush is beating the war drums against Iran and doing so with the same arguments as Iraq.

Bush claims to support democracy but supports governments that don't practice democracy. Bush claims that the UN must be obeyed and used the UN as an excuse to invade Iraq. Yet this country has continuously ignored Israels behavior in ignoring the UN.

And yes Iraq is the new training ground for terrorists. It's the new Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=187806
0 Replies
 
PoetSeductress
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 08:37 pm
Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
hamburger wrote:
poet :
if you want to meet some gentle muslims, take a cruise on one of the ships of the holland-america line (part of carnival cruise lines).
many of the ships crew are muslims - our last cabin steward's name was 'mohamed' - a pretty authentic muslim . i'd be hard pressed to find a more gentle and truly friendly people .

it's interesting that the article you have posted mentions lybia and qaddaffi . lybia has , of course, become an important supplier of light sweet crude (the best there is) to the western world and has been forgiveb its former transgressions.
hbg


Hamburger, I understand that not everyone of a particular religion is radical. The article posted addressed those who were, and noted the one-way transitional bridge linked between the two, known to be taken by some.

I believe you; thank you for the information. Are you affiliated with the cruise ship in any way, or are you speaking as one of the passengers?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 08:48 pm
PoetSeductress

I don't disagree with the premise that there has always been, and may always be, Muslim terrorists.

What irks me is Bush has made their job easier by his invasion of Iraq. At times I wonder whose side he's on, ours or Osama's.
0 Replies
 
PoetSeductress
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 09:05 pm
Re: Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
nimh wrote:
But anti-American revulsion among the population at large is now significantly bigger than 10 years ago.

Which Muslim population? The moderate secular Muslims? The radical secular Muslims? The True Islamists?

I would like to see the official numbers on it. Otherwise, the claims here are empty.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 09:22 pm
Re: Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
PoetSeductress wrote:
nimh wrote:
But anti-American revulsion among the population at large is now significantly bigger than 10 years ago.
Which Muslim population? The moderate secular Muslims? The radical secular Muslims? The True Islamists?

I would like to see the official numbers on it. Otherwise, the claims here are empty.

And where do you suggest one would be able to get "the official numbers" on how many Muslims, throughout a part of the world scattered with dictatorships, like or dislike Americans?

There are, as of now, no neutral but universally and representatively applied United Nations opinion polls, I'm afraid ... so reasoned estimations and informed impressions is exactly what you'll have to go on, for better or for worse - one way or another.

Information to base oneself on would range from opinion polls, where they did take place (tho they tend to be more specific, such as the polls undertaken in Iraq by a consortium of international news organisations and the American administration itself, respectively, a year or two ago, about how the Iraqis trusted the US army or administrators -- they didnt); frequency and mass of spontaneous protests (hard to distinguish from non-spontaneous ones, but there you go), observations from Arab commentators, anecdotal evidence of people-one-knows, etc.

In the category of anecdotal evidence, the Muslims I knew in Holland became stringently more hostile to the US in the past five years..
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 09:26 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The spread of Democracy is good.
But not if the people elect the wrong sort of government.

No, it's always good. All people deserve to be in control of their government.
I look forward to seeing Condoleeza Rice embrace the democratically elected leaders of Hamas.

I didn't say that we have to like it. The fact that Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany didn't make him desirable.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 09:31 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Clinton didn't try to bomb the Muslim countries into oblivion, did he?

Neither has Bush.

Afghanistan was in retaliation for the mass murder of our citizens in New York.

Iraq was because we had finally lost patience with trying to keep doomsday weapons out of the hands of a madman after 12 years of his conning us. Remember, Hussein had annexed Kuwait, and we kicked him out, and got his agreement to destroy his WMD in a manner such that we could be sure he had done so.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 09:32 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Clinton didn't try to bomb the Muslim countries into oblivion, did he?

Neither has Bush.

Afghanistan was in retaliation for the mass murder of our citizens in New York.

Iraq was because we had finally lost patience with trying to keep doomsday weapons out of the hands of a madman after 12 years of his conning us. Remember, Hussein had annexed Kuwait, and we kicked him out, and got his agreement to destroy his WMD in a manner such that we could be sure he had done so.


Keep believing that Brandon. You are one of the few who still do.
0 Replies
 
PoetSeductress
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 10:11 pm
Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
xingu wrote:
What the invasion of Iraq has done is to gain more sympathy for the extremist. The extremist message is the West wants to invade and colonize the Middle East so as to control the oil.


The extremist will fabricate and pump out any propaganda imaginable, to try and further their cause.

xingu wrote:
Bush's invasion of Iraq is gives credibility to this argument.


How?

xingu wrote:
This is especially true in light of the fact that every reason Bush gave for the invasion was false.


Please show me the proof that all of his reasons were false. Those are serious accusations.

xingu wrote:
Now Bush is beating the war drums against Iran and doing so with the same arguments as Iraq.


Yes, that's unfortunate, but a fact of life, that when your neighbor exterminates their apartment for roaches, the rodents invariably make their way to the closest, dirtiest apartment.

xingu wrote:
Bush claims to support democracy but supports governments that don't practice democracy.


Who said he wasn't supposed to? How is this any different than most other presidents in our history?

Sure, it would be tempting to excommunicate all those who are not democratic republics. But this would be bad strategy in a lot of things.

As a networker, if I were to not associate with or help anyone who didn't believe the way I did, this would cut down my social and business connections to the bone, and greatly decrease my success both personally and in business, not to mention my happiness and quality of life.

xingu wrote:
Bush claims that the UN must be obeyed and used the UN as an excuse to invade Iraq.


Every major global intelligence operation, along with the UN, voiced extreme concerned about Iraq, and stressed that something had to be done. Years passed, and no one had enough balls to step up to the plate and do something. This continued, until 9/11, which was more catastrophic than the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was the last straw that broke the camel's back.

Bush bent over backward talking with the UN, global leaders, and Sadaam, but to no avail. In my opionion, Bush pussyfooted around too long. He should have done it sooner. But since he was trying to please everyone and his brother, a lot of time was wasted, which gave SH plenty of time to stash his load somewhere else.

xingu wrote:
Yet this country has continuously ignored Israels behavior in ignoring the UN.


The USA can't and shouldn't have to police every country on the face of the earth. The only reason we stepped in at all, was because of the top-level severity of the situation. We cannot sit back and take a blow of that caliber and not do anything about it. That is the (in)action of a coward.

xingu wrote:
And yes Iraq is the new training ground for terrorists. It's the new Afghanistan.


It was one of the major training grounds for terrorism, which is exactly one of the reasons why we went there, to begin with. Bush made it clear that we (the US) would sytematically go after those who continued to harbor terrorists. A lot of it has now been knocked out, and the place is no longer the hotbed it was, for terrorist training.

On the other hand, the turmoil has obviously, recently increased. The terrorists are swarming into Iraq from other countries like flies. On the positive side, one could say that this is beneficial, because you can fight them there, since they're concentrated in a major area. (sort of like being able to swat a group of flies with one swat) On the negative side, this poses a new problem which calls for a new strategy, which we apparently don't have, as of yet. Since no one has ever fought this kind of grand-scale, unconventional war, we can only move forward, and learn as we go.
0 Replies
 
PoetSeductress
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 10:29 pm
Re: Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
nimh wrote:
PoetSeductress wrote:
nimh wrote:
But anti-American revulsion among the population at large is now significantly bigger than 10 years ago.
Which Muslim population? The moderate secular Muslims? The radical secular Muslims? The True Islamists?

I would like to see the official numbers on it. Otherwise, the claims here are empty.

And where do you suggest one would be able to get "the official numbers" on how many Muslims, throughout a part of the world scattered with dictatorships, like or dislike Americans?


Yes, nimh, you've made a good point. I don't know where to get an accurate, trustworthy count, either. In this case, one cannot state as a fact, "...anti-American revulsion among the population at large is now significantly bigger than 10 years ago". In order to maintain the integrity of this statement, it must be put forth as your personal viewpoint. >> Please see this post.
0 Replies
 
PoetSeductress
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 10:34 pm
Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
xingu wrote:
PoetSeductress

I don't disagree with the premise that there has always been, and may always be, Muslim terrorists.

What irks me is Bush has made their job easier by his invasion of Iraq. At times I wonder whose side he's on, ours or Osama's.


Thanks, xingu. But seriously, how has he made their easier?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 10:11:14