Mousavi wins Iran election with 65 percent of vote
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
The US should be protecting its own borders on American soil instead of invading other countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq).
If our miliatry cannot find a 6 foot 6 guy hiding in a goddam cave (with all of our most advanced military technology), it makes me think that Osama is 1) dead 2) we don't really want to capture him. Remember, the US always needs a boogie man so the neo-cons can legitimize their actions and pursue their global agenda.
Cheney acts like such a tough guy now but when it was his time to serve in the military he was deferred from service four times! What a baby. http://www.slate.com/id/2097365/
Btw, did you know that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA informant and that the US helped train the Taliban in the late 1970s? (when Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan)
Of course. We need to negotiate with everyone. It doesn't mean we have to give into any of their demands.
But speaking and acting diplomatically is a better method than bombing and invading countries... with inaccurate intelligence.
Bush's War on Terror is a failure. Not only is the entire Middle-East anti-US foreign policy, but we also pissed off our allies (European countries). There is more acts of terrorism today than there was before 9/11.
Do you really think Bush made a safer world? Looks like a more dangerous world to me!
I'm sure you'd feel the same if your dirt hut was bombed. Many americans don't feel we should be in Iraq, I'm not going to argue that point. Afghanistan on the other hand.....
While it is possible they let him go to have a bogeyman out there at the same time Bush could have earned HUGE political capital if Bin Ladin was killed so I don't buy it. Even so, what does that have to do with anything?
The 1970s???? Please tell me why that matters today? Obviously you're not old enough to remember the cold war, or too old and you've forgotten it. Looking at it now it's easy to say (evidenced by your posts) that we should have picked better allies, but allies are allies when you're fighting a country willing to kill as many people (even their own people) as possible to try and take over the world.
Please dismiss my zionist rants and head back your moderator duties (after you get back from your cross burning and take off your white hood ... white hoods can make it hard to be unbiased when moderating)
Quote from monty21:
Of course. We need to negotiate with everyone. It doesn't mean we have to give into any of their demands.
But speaking and acting diplomatically is a better method than bombing and invading countries... with inaccurate intelligence.
Bush's War on Terror is a failure. Not only is the entire Middle-East anti-US foreign policy, but we also pissed off our allies (European countries). There is more acts of terrorism today than there was before 9/11.
Do you really think Bush made a safer world? Looks like a more dangerous world to me!
Your chart proves zippola. You want proof, see my chart below:
That said, Bush was a flaming idiot. He f*cked up the war on terror just like he f*cked up pretty much everything else he did, from Katrina to Iraq to the budget to the economy. You could not find a worse manager for pretty much anything than Bush. If I were his father I'd disown him for bringing shame to the family.
Are you the re-incarnation of Neville Chamberlain?
Just because I am critical of US foreign policy and its financial support of Israel and Egypt (religious states) does not give you to right to post such arrogant comments about a white hood. My parents are first generation immigrants, I grew up in a diverse part of NY (Queen's, NY), and was raised as a Roman Catholic (not Protestant) although I am no longer religious.
I have a belief, as does the Constitution, that religion has no business in politics. The U.S. should not be supporting any religion states. I will also make the bold statement... if religion did not exist, there would be less war and hatred between different groups. The Israeli's and Palestinians would not be so sensitive and would live together in harmony. They wouldn't have to fight about which God gave them this land. Without radical religion, there would also be less terrorism.
I have a belief, as does the Constitution, that religion has no business in politics. The U.S. should not be supporting any religion states. I will also make the bold statement... if religion did not exist, there would be less war and hatred between different groups. The Israeli's and Palestinians would not be so sensitive and would live together in harmony. They wouldn't have to fight about which God gave them this land. Without radical religion, there would also be less terrorism.
Okay, but what ensures a piece of land to a certain religion? Its ludicrous to use a Bible, Torah or Koran to justify something like this. A holy book is not a legal document.
Modern day Israel was historically at least once controlled by (among other sects) Jews, Christians and Muslims. After WWII, the allies decided to give the land over to the Jews as a safe haven after the tragedy of the Holocaust. But was it right to punish the Arabs that were already there? There land was stolen and they had little to none political power.