Obama shows sense of realism

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

21st September 2009, 07:28
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

Yes he was guilty of killing on a nation wide level, but still didnt give the US or us Brits the right to invade the country...

UN resolutions ending the Gulf War in 1991 basically said that the combantants on the UN/Allied side were to enforce the resolutions until further notice. Full and open inspection of all facilities for chemical production, arms and military bases was part of that. When Saddam refused based on the idea he didn't want the rest of the Arab world to know he didn't have all of what he hinted at, that is where Bush got his legal pretext. I know this hurts your wee mind Steve, but Blair is a lawyer. I think he knew what he was supporting was legal or NOT legal and he won an election after all this started did he not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

Havent done a great job of imposing their value system have they? I dont see what right they have on trying to impose their value system on others...

No..they didn't impose their value system outside of the idea of a multiparty democracy and trying to educate the Iraqí's on how to balance human rights and maintain security. The Iraqi's have for the most part not always followed these ideas, but I don't think all of that should be put on the heads of the yanks.
21st September 2009, 07:30
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Me thinks you ignore the first 12 resolutions ending the first Gulf War after the invasion of Kuwait. I believe the alternative to Saddam NOT following UN dictates on those 12 resolutions ending that conflict was a resumation of the war. THAT my friend is the legal pretext that Bush was pointing to. Either UN resolutions are enforced, or are meaningless platitudes. It seems some of you guys are quite willing to watch the UN make these resolutions but if there is no enforcment or consequences to breaking them, then really, is there a point to the UN at all?

There was no specific resolution permitting the invasion of Iraq in 2003 in stark contrast to the first Gulf War and you know it. The resolutions you speak of did not specifically allow invasion of a sovereign state. Kofi Annan even described the invasion as being illegal for those reasons.

The UN resolutions WERE enforced with embargos and the occasional use of force. Missile strikes and annexing huge chunks of Iraqi airspace was pretty major.

Presumably though if you're so upset about UN resolutions not being enforced you'll want Israel to be invaded pretty sharpish right? After all Israel is the single biggest violator of UN resolutions on the planet. Got to treat all countries equally eh? Or do UN resolutions only need to be enforced by invasion when it suits you?
21st September 2009, 07:37
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

When Saddam refused based on the idea he didn't want the rest of the Arab world to know he didn't have all of what he hinted at, that is where Bush got his legal pretext. I know this hurts your wee mind Steve, but Blair is a lawyer. I think he knew what he was supporting was legal or NOT legal and he won an election after all this started did he not?

Mark, do not attempt to condescend others when your argument is very thin. You often do this and I'm afraid it reflects rather poorly on your understanding of events.

The interpretation of the legal pretext you refer to was shared by very few people, including the British military. I attended a talk by the British chief of staff in London prior to the invasion where he was asked about the level of intelligence and the legality of the war. As a good military bod he was giving a good pitch for the war and went on to discuss how the intelligence regarding WMD was pretty good but the legality? He couldn't answer that question and refused to go into details. If one of the chief architects of the war couldn't declare the war legal how on earth can you?

Oh btw your lawyer Blair also broke the law several other times while he was PM particularly when it came to taking cash for perks (commonly known as bribes I believe). I wouldn't have as much confidence in his adherence to legal activities as you seem to have.
21st September 2009, 08:40
Mark

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Really?

Explain WW2 to me then.
You remember WW2 don't you?
That is where the 2nd largest Military in the world attacked the Biggest Millitary.

Well there was a small flaw in their plan...

Really, someone who has never watched Blackadder! Amazing.
21st September 2009, 08:54
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Eki...Finland was how big? 4 million people back then? The USSR was HOW BIG???

North Korea is how big and rich? The US is how big, rich and close to the US?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Georgia wasn't a security threat enough that they deserved the Russian army to flatten half the country.

Neither was Iraq to the US in 2003. Or Lebanon to Israel in 2006.
21st September 2009, 08:56
Roamy

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

your usual anti US driveling rants?? When people dont agree with things the US does, you lot cry the anti American tune... :rolleyes:

I am not anti American..Its just that i dont AGREE with alot of their silly adventures, but i would suggest that your fellow American Fousto put a halt to his anti everyone who isnt American drivel...But no that wont happen, as for some bizzare reason You lot think that you are allowed to insult and slam others, yet expect nothing in return which i find rather odd?

The Iraqi government during the illegal invasion of Iraq was a puppet regime put in place by Bush. Saddam was escorted to the gallows by US soldiers...

Hey Spack I am a equal opportunity Hater - I Hate many Americans too.
21st September 2009, 08:59
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

I agree it wasn't all simple, but you keep advocating diplomacy for all the world's ills when you see a war you dont'like, but you almost give Stalin justification for the invasion of 1939.

The fact that I acknowledge his motives doesn't mean I personally accept and agree with them.
21st September 2009, 12:57
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Kofi Annan even described the invasion as being illegal for those reasons.

The UN resolutions WERE enforced with embargos and the occasional use of force.

And Kofi Annan had no reason to defend the status quo anti? No reason to continue the embargos?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...90701646.html#
21st September 2009, 13:54
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

It never got off the ground Ben. Yeltsin was lacking in keeping control of the people stealing from the state, the gangs and corruption. Putin came along to solve those issues, but really, he used their power base TO get elected.

Russia isn't the old USSR, but by god that isn't a good thing either. Putin is far more efficient, and the Russian economy actually is far more efficient than the USSR was too. Used to create havoc, that is a bad thing.

OK, so why hasn't this borne any fruit at all? The funding just doesn't seem to be reaching the military. For example, the Russian government has just had to get a bank to pay for the start of production of some new fighter aircraft (and hardly any of them at that), having received no export orders. It is a token gesture of military modernisation at best.
21st September 2009, 16:40
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

OK, so why hasn't this borne any fruit at all? The funding just doesn't seem to be reaching the military. For example, the Russian government has just had to get a bank to pay for the start of production of some new fighter aircraft (and hardly any of them at that), having received no export orders. It is a token gesture of military modernisation at best.

They are being more careful with their cash and not going into debt to do what they want to do. I think Putin is also wary about giving the military too much...they may take him out if they have too much...

Their economy tho is more realistic...this is the real economy that the country has and that is the level it can fund its military. The USSR went broke trying to be something it wasn't. Reagan was the man who cottoned on to that...
21st September 2009, 16:54
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

There was no specific resolution permitting the invasion of Iraq in 2003 in stark contrast to the first Gulf War and you know it. The resolutions you speak of did not specifically allow invasion of a sovereign state. Kofi Annan even described the invasion as being illegal for those reasons.

The UN resolutions WERE enforced with embargos and the occasional use of force. Missile strikes and annexing huge chunks of Iraqi airspace was pretty major.

Presumably though if you're so upset about UN resolutions not being enforced you'll want Israel to be invaded pretty sharpish right? After all Israel is the single biggest violator of UN resolutions on the planet. Got to treat all countries equally eh? Or do UN resolutions only need to be enforced by invasion when it suits you?

Kofi Annan was corrupt, his son was up to his ears in the oil for food scam. So anything he says on Iraq I would have to say is invalid due to his obvious conflict of interest.

The UN resolutions should have been enforced by the embargo if there was proof it was working and Iraq was getting out of the WMD business, but it was clear he wanted everyone to think he was up so something; but with Bush looking for possibilities with regimes with WMD's and sympathy for Al Quaida, playing poker with nothing in your hand was a bad strategy. I will point out I think that the Gulf War in hindsight was not the best way to have dealt with Iraq, BUT that is hindsight.

As for the resolutions passed by the UN, many make no sense or are pushed by agenda's that are not pure. The resolutions against Israel are drawn up by the Arab states and somehow given validity by countries purely making trouble. The resolutions of the UN often are NOT enforced, but here we had two major powers ready to enforce them or go back to war with Iraq as a continuation of the first gulf war. Saddam agreed to those 12 to end that war and then was renegging 11 years later because he didn't want to look weak. The resolutions that ended that war basically said you agree or the cease fire is off. That Clinton chose not to go to war with Iraq was his call, but if you remember in 1997 there was a lot of talk of reopening the hostilities over this then and a lot of it was from the very same people decrying it in the US Congress when Bush did it.

Listen, I follow geo politics from a layman's point of view based on what I can read and learn in the media. I do know this much tho. This constant anti US carping is a bit of a joke, because despite their flaws, they have never been a legitimate threat to any democratic, free nation. They may play bullying games economically, and their popular culture has kind of overrun some places, but the US isn't the world's bad guy.

AS for your Brit military friend, he couldn't give you the justification in legal terms. He is a military man, they make decisions based on military logic. Legality they leave to their political masters. Was Blair clean? Maybe not...but I can also tell you Tony Blair would have no desire to end up in the Hague as a war criminal, and unlike the US, you have to know he would have to consider that possiblity. Americans wont accept a outside body dictating their domestic laws or politicians. Americans rule americans. Blair wouldn't be protected that way if certain groups in the UK felt he had committed a war crime.
21st September 2009, 17:07
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

North Korea is how big and rich? The US is how big, rich and close to the US?

Neither was Iraq to the US in 2003. Or Lebanon to Israel in 2006.

North Korea has been threatening to invade the south, where 30000 American troops have been a trip wire for years. Using nukes on them isn't a threat?

Lebanon wasn't a threat? The Nation state of Lebanon wasn't, but they couldn't stop Hezbollah from attacking Israeli settlements with rocket attacks. After about a year or so of this nonsense, Israel could very well claim Lebanon was a failed state and you would have to go a long way to say Lebanon was in control of its borders. Sorry, Israel was heavy handed but justified on many levels for wanting to stop terrorist attacks on its civilians. THAT is why a country has an army...to defend its territory.

AS for Iraq to the Americans, you are partially right. Iraq or just about all but a few nations are no direct threat to the Americans. Americans tho, and their military are often drawn into conflicts because of the geopolictical implications of their non-involvement. Only an idiot would not see the US involved in the Arab world as being about anything other than oil. That said, the protection of the oil producing states in the Persian Gulf is a imperative for the developed world for the possiblity of the oil flow being shut off or manipulated could wreck the ecomomic system of the planet in ways the bankers of Wall St. couldn't touch. The US was there to put Kuwait back in Kuwaiti hands, and they stayed there to keep Saddam from making another grab for the oil states. Therefore, if they are going to be there, and they fought a war to put Saddam on his own side of the border, they would be the most logical people to enforce the UN resolutions ending that war. When Saddam didn't follow the dictates of this, Bush had his pretext. Bush also was of the theory that any regime with WMD's hostile to the West AND with possible connections to Bin Laden might be a threat (weak I know...but hey, the CIA, MI in Britain and SDECE all thought Iraq had WMD's, and Saddam wouldn't have any morals about selling them to people hostile to theUS)
21st September 2009, 17:22
F1boat

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

It is pure appeasement. There is no argument that can change that fact.

Once again a left winger has cowardly thrown our allies under the bus. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

Welcome back Carter

anthonypop, surveys suggest that the majority of people in Poland and Checkh Republic are happy with Obama's decision. The only people under the buss are the christofascists who rule the GOP and want eternal war with Islam.
21st September 2009, 17:32
F1boat

The reason Obama is so popular among the liberals, who voted for him, and the countries around the world is that he is a Democrat. Democracy means - the People Rule. The majority of the people who elected him, maybe even the majority of Americans, approve his more peaceful way. The majority in Poland and the Check Republic also approve his decision. So it was the right decision - he proved himself as a true democrat. I have to remind people that, yes, the US will not have their high tech weapons in Poland and the Check Republic, but the Russia will also not install rockets in Kalinsgrad. Sounds nice to me. No weapons, no fighting.
But I am not surprised that conservatives are unhappy. Their ideology is "my way or the highway". To impose it they need bullying. So they are not very different to Putin as they would like to think. They are even homophobic and liberal-hating as him.
21st September 2009, 17:57
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1boat

The reason Obama is so popular among the liberals, who voted for him, and the countries around the world is that he is a Democrat. Democracy means - the People Rule. The majority of the people who elected him, maybe even the majority of Americans, approve his more peaceful way. The majority in Poland and the Check Republic also approve his decision. So it was the right decision - he proved himself as a true democrat. I have to remind people that, yes, the US will not have their high tech weapons in Poland and the Check Republic, but the Russia will also not install rockets in Kalinsgrad. Sounds nice to me. No weapons, no fighting.
But I am not surprised that conservatives are unhappy. Their ideology is "my way or the highway". To impose it they need bullying. So they are not very different to Putin as they would like to think. They are even homophobic and liberal-hating as him.

First, Democrat and democracy aren't the same thing. One is a political philosophy the other is a political party that may or may not have many of the tenents of the democratic philosophy.

Second, the one pole that I could find shows significant support in the US for the missle defense shield. It is a bit old, and I didn't do too much searching for a newer one, so maybe things have changed a bit.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=203835

Third, Obama doesn't have the overall support of the US anymore.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Fourth, Liberals do their fair share of bullying as well. Just look at how often people opposed to health care are called racists. For them it's "my way or you're a racist". I'm not saying that that justifies some of the things that are said on either side of the eisle, just that ALL of them do it. The "bullying" is not just a Conservative trait.
21st September 2009, 17:58
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

They are being more careful with their cash and not going into debt to do what they want to do. I think Putin is also wary about giving the military too much...they may take him out if they have too much...

Their economy tho is more realistic...this is the real economy that the country has and that is the level it can fund its military. The USSR went broke trying to be something it wasn't. Reagan was the man who cottoned on to that...

I think you are being unnecessarily paranoid about Russia's military capabilities. It seems to me that every important aspect of its defence industry and military is in tatters. The armed forces don't have sufficient resources, are generally ill-equipped and, by Western standards, ill-trained. And the defence industry there has singularly failed to adapt to the post-Cold War world in spite of many efforts aimed at countering this — there has been little proper funding for badly-needed new products because the Russian armed forces can't afford them, many important Russian companies have developed an extremely poor reputation in terms of the basic reliability and 'fitness for purpose' of their products, and they are thus seriously handicapped on the export market. It doesn't paint a very scary picture to me.
21st September 2009, 18:00
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Second, the one pole that I could find...

A Freudian slip if ever I saw one.
21st September 2009, 18:02
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Was Blair clean? Maybe not...but I can also tell you Tony Blair would have no desire to end up in the Hague as a war criminal, and unlike the US, you have to know he would have to consider that possiblity.

Given that there was simply no way in reality that Blair or Bush was ever likely to go up in front of a war crimes trial, I would doubt that he lost a moment's sleep over it.
21st September 2009, 18:12
F1boat

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

First, Democrat and democracy aren't the same thing. One is a political philosophy the other is a political party that may or may not have many of the tenents of the democratic philosophy.

Second, the one pole that I could find shows significant support in the US for the missle defense shield. It is a bit old, and I didn't do too much searching for a newer one, so maybe things have changed a bit.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=203835

Third, Obama doesn't have the overall support of the US anymore.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Fourth, Liberals do their fair share of bullying as well. Just look at how often people opposed to health care are called racists. For them it's "my way or you're a racist". I'm not saying that that justifies some of the things that are said on either side of the eisle, just that ALL of them do it. The "bullying" is not just a Conservative trait.

chuck, it is true. Of course that the Dems and the liberals have some problems as well. But if you compare the ideas of the Dems, the GOP and United Russia you will be suprised to see how much the GOP and United Russia are similar in social issues for example, or the ideas about the role of the Fatherland in the world.
21st September 2009, 18:25
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

North Korea has been threatening to invade the south, where 30000 American troops have been a trip wire for years. Using nukes on them isn't a threat?

What are they doing in Korea? There's room enough for 30000 American troops in the mainland USA.

North Korea is how big and rich compared to South Korea?
21st September 2009, 18:35
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

What are they doing in Korea? There's room enough for 30000 American troops in the mainland USA.

North Korea is how big and rich compared to South Korea?

So do all issues boil down to a size and economic power p!ssing match?
21st September 2009, 18:38
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Lebanon wasn't a threat? The Nation state of Lebanon wasn't, but they couldn't stop Hezbollah from attacking Israeli settlements with rocket attacks. After about a year or so of this nonsense, Israel could very well claim Lebanon was a failed state and you would have to go a long way to say Lebanon was in control of its borders. Sorry, Israel was heavy handed but justified on many levels for wanting to stop terrorist attacks on its civilians. THAT is why a country has an army...to defend its territory.

Yep, that was Stalin's logic too in 1939. There had been 9000 voluntary Finnish fighters fighting against the Soviet Union less than two decades earlier and Leningrad was within artillery reach from the Finnish border:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat

Israel had even less patience. They invaded Lebanon after Hezbollah had snatched just two Israeli soldiers. You can't say Hezbollah or Hamas are threats to the existence of Israel. It's just like the Soviets said to Hitler "In Finland it is - they who take action against the, friends, of the Soviet Union. They would [take action] against [our] society, against us - they would continuously, persecute us and, a great power cannot be threatened by a minor country."
21st September 2009, 18:58
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

So do all issues boil down to a size and economic power p!ssing match?

Much of it is about pride, yes. For example, the US could have easily taken the 9/11 attacks and absorbed them, but their pride couldn't take them. That's why they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Turning the other cheek wasn't an option for them.
21st September 2009, 19:03
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Much of it is about pride, yes. For example, the US could have easily taken the 9/11 attacks and absorbed them, but their pride couldn't take them. That's why they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

What? You are suggesting that we should have let 9/11 happen without doing anything? You are off your rocker.

Are you seriously suggesting that had we not done anything after 9/11 that that would have been the end of it? You don't see ANY national security issues with that what-so-ever?
21st September 2009, 19:59
Roamy

Mark,

You have to realize that these TIREs have no defense from a powerful enemy. So they are forced to get along and watch their step in all political matters. In addition they have no natural resources so they are dependent on the rest or the world for survival. They envy our way of life and are always there to drag us in the direction of socialism and power reduction policies. LIke we try and force democracy down everyone's throats. Well sadly socialism in not for all and democracy is not for all. That is why I favor bringing our war machine home to rest. I want to sell Nato the equipment and just play more golf. Take Afghanistan - all we need to do is spray the poppy fields with agent orange and be done with it. Sh!t they sprayed in on me so it should be good enough for the Afghans.
21st September 2009, 20:01
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

You don't see ANY national security issues with that what-so-ever?

Of course you should have improved the national security within your country, like improving border control and airline security so it would have become more unlikely to happen again. Only fools don't learn from their mistakes.
21st September 2009, 20:08
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Of course you should have improved the national security within your country, like improving border control and airline security so it would have become more unlikely to happen again. Only fools don't learn from their mistakes.

Ah yes, of course. But if you advocate for border control you are labeled a racist against those poor downtroden Mexicans. And if you are for increased airline security you are called some sort of Nazi who wants to strip search grandma. It's no win.

Even at that, had all we done was tighten up security at the borders and air ports, do you really think that no one would have attacked us. The enemy we are facing is not dumb. They don't normally do things twice the same way. So we take steps to prevent the last attack and the next attack slips through our fingers. Then thousands more innocent civilians are murdered. No the only way to prevent another attack is to stop it at it's source.

Turning the other cheek only get's you slapped again. At some point you have to stop being a sucker.
21st September 2009, 20:09
Roamy

yes EKI you are right
a fool and his money are soon parted

NO MORE FOREIGN AID
NO MORE GLOBAL MILITARY BASES !!
BUY AMERICAN - F___ CHINA

At the rate we are going we are sure to be taken over by Portugal !!
21st September 2009, 20:15
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Ah yes, of course. But if you advocate for border control you are labeled a racist against those poor downtroden Mexicans. And if you are for increased airline security you are called some sort of Nazi who wants to strip search grandma. It's no win.

Even at that, had all we done was tighten up security at the borders and air ports, do you really think that no one would have attacked us. The enemy we are facing is not dumb. They don't normally do things twice the same way. So we take steps to prevent the last attack and the next attack slips through our fingers. Then thousands more innocent civilians are murdered. No the only way to prevent another attack is to stop it at it's source.

Turning the other cheek only get's you slapped again. At some point you have to stop being a sucker.

Finland learnt from its mistakes, and now we have lived in peace with the Russians for over 60 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat

Quote:

Finland had, for the two next decades, a relatively high citizen participation in nationalistic activities (e.g Karelianism and Finnicization of the country and its institutions). Only the strenuous five-year period 1939–45 of total war drained excess enthusiasm.

If you quit interfering in the Middle East and the Muslim world, I'm sure they'd leave you alone too.
21st September 2009, 20:18
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Even at that, had all we done was tighten up security at the borders and air ports, do you really think that no one would have attacked us. The enemy we are facing is not dumb. They don't normally do things twice the same way.

Why, then, are we told constantly by governments that al-Qaida will at some point use airliners again for attacks?
21st September 2009, 20:24
F1boat

Quote:

Originally Posted by fousto

They envy our way of life

ROFL! I'd like to visit the USA, at it is a great country with great history, but to live there, no. If I have to leave my country, I'd try some country in which people, uh, can have some fun, not just work to eat and eat to work. :-)
21st September 2009, 20:25
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why, then, are we told constantly by governments that al-Qaida will at some point use airliners again for attacks?

They could. I wouldn't rule anything out. They've used truck bombs before as well.
21st September 2009, 20:27
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Finland learnt from its mistakes, and now we have lived in peace with the Russians for over 60 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat

If you quit interfering in the Middle East and the Muslim world, I'm sure they'd leave you alone too.

Yep, everything's simple isn't it. Just roll over and take it and they'll leave us alone. All's well, just follow the Finnish model and it will lead to greatness.
21st September 2009, 20:30
Roamy

well it won't happen except for terror attacks. They know now that we will go down with the plane rather than to allow the plane to be used as in 911. The alarm is centered around the development of explosives in the form of concealable liquids. Everyone here has a gun for defense and soon every Islam will have a bomb for a offense. Should be a interesting world. Maybe the way the world is headed real estate may not be a very good investment.
21st September 2009, 20:31
F1boat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

If you quit interfering in the Middle East and the Muslim world, I'm sure they'd leave you alone too.

Not so sure Eki. The radicals in these countries are like conservatives on steroids.
21st September 2009, 20:32
BDunnell

It remains clear, alas, that levels of terrorist-related paranoia — for that is what it is — are still unduly high in some quarters.
21st September 2009, 20:33
Roamy

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1boat

ROFL! I'd like to visit the USA, at it is a great country with great history, but to live there, no. If I have to leave my country, I'd try some country in which people, uh, can have some fun, not just work to eat and eat to work. :-)

Hey I like that idea
how about italy spain or portugal?
21st September 2009, 20:35
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Yep, everything's simple isn't it. Just roll over and take it and they'll leave us alone. All's well, just follow the Finnish model and it will lead to greatness.

Just roll over? No, first you should ask yourself if it's all worth it and what's in there for you. What is there really for the US in the Middle East and the Muslim world that makes all this worthwhile?
21st September 2009, 20:35
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It remains clear, alas, that levels of terrorist-related paranoia — for that is what it is — are still unduly high in some quarters.

Where's the line between what you define as paranoia, and due dilligence?
21st September 2009, 20:38
F1boat

Quote:

Originally Posted by fousto

Hey I like that idea
how about italy spain or portugal?

Yes. Exactly like that. Somewhere in which there is neither ultra right conservatism nor former communists-now-capitalists LOL :-)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page