American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Hello Rock Harder,

You know I'm a great fan of your posts and reports about Cocodrillo and night life in B.A. But I have some problems in following you here.

IMHO this "wrong and vile" foreign policies US had been leading, according to you, in my opinion are the main responsibles of us all staying here, enjoying the life we lead and in fact I don't think they are wrong at all.

So like the sayings says don't spit to heaven because.

Ha, ha!

Hope you don't get this words wrong and am always a great fan of your reports about night life in B. A.

If you eliminate US foreign policy, then you eliminate the need for the State Department and the Defense Department. Maybe then the reasoning and requirements for declaring war or establishing sanctions against another governing body goes away. An actual semblance of World Peace anyone?

But what would that cost? Our National Security? Why are we so wrapped up in prioritizing our National Security and ensuring that it is on the tip of our tongues to discuss, report on or even debate in the first place? Why is the National Security of the United States of America SO important? It's an incredible forethought for any US citizen and rightfully so.

It's important, because we are constantly under attack in some way shape or form. We are constantly a target. The peace, prosperity and SAFETY is Priority #1 of any US public servant that he / she has been elected to represent. They know that and us as responsible voting citizens know it and demand it. As long as this world has crazed dictating lunatics, extremist religious factions and selfish and corrupt foreign governments, then we absolutely MUST defend our homeland at all costs, even if that includes being pre-emptive in our actions.

But then again, WHY are they ATTACKING US? Could it be our FUCKING FOREIGN POLICY! This administration's, the last one's. How many administrations do you want to go back to place adequate blame? In my humble opinion, I can find fault going back at least 50 years. It's not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's a "the US is obligated to butt in in everyone else's business because we have taken the role of the World Police Officer and refuse to give that role up in any way shape or form" type of an issue. If you let the world go rogue, then you have no World Peace, right?

It's an endless hopeless circle. If you eliminated the need for either US foreign policy or the need to maintain US National Security, then we might actually stop some of the senselessness by breaking the cycle. But, that would never make any common sense, would it? At least not in my lifetime.

Wonderful.

I don't fight for "respect" or impose will. I don't NEED somebody else's respect. I don't NEED somebody else to agree with my idealogy. That's the mentality of a bully. I ensure I protect my right to think and say and do whatever the fuck I want, and if threatened, I'll kill an opposing soldier for that right. That's the mentality of a free, proud and liberated man. The US Constitution bleeds this at its core. In my opinion, that mentality has been tainted, twisted and murdered by countless political, socialogical and religious factors. Oh, and of course, greed.

To me, its unfortunate that the bully mentality has a firm grasp in government today (and not just in the US) and its not letting go anytime soon.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-

Nowhere have I ever made the argument that Israel should not exist. What I have repeatedly argued here is that Israel should be forced to give the Palestinians a workable state, and the Palestinians lack of a state and their poor treatment at the hands of the Israelis is the primary cause of Muslim hatred toward the US (for unconditionally supporting Israel's actions and non-actions)

Principles and US foreign policy? Surely you must be joking. The US has supported some of the most vile, murderous regimes the world has ever seen. The US doesn't not care how despotic a particular leader or regime is as long as his policies don't conflict with US economic interests. US foreign policy is driven almost entirely with the goal of maintaining and furthering the US economic empire (or what is left of it) The fact of the matter is that foreign policy the world over (not just the US) is entirely about pragmatism and not principles.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]There, clear as crystal, is the US foreign policy in it's historical basic core. We don't have to apologizie for that, but we do have to accept the consequences of our policies. We are still the world's richest and powerful country, but at the present time, we are stuck in the mud, and we are responsible for our own quagmire.

Really nothing to be bickering on the board, at least to the level of personal insults.

One thought, had Germany been forced to give up a portion of it's territory for the Jews, the world landscape would not be as harsh as it is right now.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]WW, do a little light research and you will in fact see that two million Iraqi children DID in fact starve to death as a result of the US sanctions during the 90's. Yes, Saddam Hussein's regime manipulated the Oil for Food Program to bolster their personal wealth; the US knew about that, and the children starving to death, and decided the political gains from maintaining the sanctions outweighed two million children starving to death. WW, in your opinion, is keeping Saddam Hussein "corralled" worth two million children starving to death? The Muslim world also knew about this (what do you think Al-Jazeera was broadcasting every night? And were disgusted that the US (who claim to be such great humanitarians) would allow this to happen.

The US government should know by now that any sanctions they implement always crush the poorest and most helpless citizens of the "enemy" country they are trying to punish. The despots who control the regime always find a way to keep their bellies full and their Ferraris full of 100 Octane gasoline (see any current or past dictatorship the US has levied sanctions against) [/QUOTE]The issue isn't so simple or one sided. And I don't think the considerations were primarily political. Clinton thought he was doing the right thing, trying to force Saddam Hussein out and keep him corralled with sanctions. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al also thought (incorrectly) that they were doing the right thing, bringing democracy to the Middle East and ending the suffering of the Iraqi people, by invading Iraq.

My problem at the time was that they were trying to do it with my tax dollars. In the group I hang out and work with, I'm the only white male that thought going into Iraq was a stupid idea at the time of the invasion. But I did think there was one justification and only one justification -- based exactly on what you describe above. A lot of people were dying because of sanctions. And the western powers did have a strong case that sanctions were preventing Saddam from starting another war or developing weapons of mass destruction. So what do you do? Allow hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's (your estimate of 2 million is way overstated) to die through sanctions? Or put people in other countries at risk by allowing the Hitler of the Middle East to accumulate the resources to rearm? Or the third option, invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein?

I also disagree strongly with your statement that it's economics that drives American foreign policy. I wish you were right, but you're not. Think about it, how can you believe that and also believe what you write about Israel? Aren't those two positions contradictory?

Reading Wikipedia is not doing light research, it is looking at the opinion of someone with an extremely liberal slant.

Starvation of Iraqi children assuredly happened during the 1990s and it was assuredly the fault of Sadam Hussein. Do not take this post as support for the war, because I believe it was a huge mistake and waste of lives and money. However, Sadam was able to sell oil, including illegally through UN personnel, and the money was there to feed the people. He chose to spend the money on other things. Sadam also killed many Kurds just for pleasure. A friend of mine worked in the "no fly" zone and he told me of some of Sadam's tricks. One trick was to fly in helicopters conveying supposed stores of foods in containers. As the Kurds gathered, the containers would open and acid would pour out. Many were killed and others were maimed. Yet you don't hear about this as it does not fit the agenda of the Wikipedia posters.

Did the light research show how many Shia and Kurd children died under Sadam Hussein before the sanctions? It was lot. Maim, torture and kill was SOP for the Sunni under Sadam.

HR you are always crying about the poor Palestinians and their "homeland". They had a homeland under the 1949 United Nations (not US) mandated partition of then British ruled Palestine. The Palestinians threw it away by trying to destroy Israel.

Arafat walked away from a deal to give the Palestinians their own self governed homeland yet a second time.

The Palestinians don't have a homeland now because they refuse to live alongside Israel and not the other way around.

Twice the Palestinians have had the opportunity to have a self governed homeland and on both occasions have thrown it away because they wanted it ALL.

Perhaps it would be best for you to move to Gaza and help Hamas, I'm sure they could use the help on their rocket crews.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]HR you are always crying about the poor Palestinians and their "homeland". They had a homeland under the 1949 United Nations (not US) mandated partition of then British ruled Palestine. The Palestinians threw it away by trying to destroy Israel.

Arafat walked away from a deal to give the Palestinians their own self governed homeland yet a second time.

The Palestinians don't have a homeland now because they refuse to live alongside Israel and not the other way around.

Twice the Palestinians have had the opportunity to have a self governed homeland and on both occasions have thrown it away because they wanted it ALL.

Perhaps it would be best for you to move to Gaza and help Hamas, I'm sure they could use the help on their rocket crews.[/QUOTE]A factual arguement like yours is just falling on deaf ears Doppelganger. As I told Rock before, never let the facts get in the way of a good liberal ranting and raving. In a decade or so once the fog of youth has cleared Rock will use that high powered education to better use and become more objective in his reasoning. LOL.

In the mean time I understand that Rock will be taking up the native Argentine indians plight in an attempt to return what is rightfully their's. Once Argentina has been returned to Guarani rule Rock will focus on returning Canada to Inuit (eskimo) control as well. WTF, they were both there first! Time to set things right don't ya know.

Happy Mongering All.

Toymann

Mongers,

The issue under discussion here is Muslim hatred toward the United States and its causes. It is completely irrelevant whether or not the Palestinians deserve a homeland or whether they had what they wanted and blew it. The fact of the matter is that the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Palestinians current status IS the primary cause of Muslim hatred toward the US and has been for 50 years, and will continue to be so until the conflict is resolved.

To the poster who commented that US unconditional support for Israel is not in the United States' economic interests and therefore that US foreign policy is not entirely driven by such; you are absolutely right, supporting Israel is NOT in the economic interests of the US and is a complete aberration. As I mentioned in an early post, the US supports Israel as a result of intense lobbying by the disproportionally powerful Jewish influences within the highest sectors of finance and government. Supporting Israel unconditionally is in THEIR interests, NOT in those of the US.

As for the Iraqi sanctions, the US knew through experience that sanctions do not work as intended against dictatorships because the said dictator can usually re-allocate resources as he chooses to keep himself and the inner circle surrounding him dining on caviar, drinking Dom and zipping around in their European sports cars while those the regime deems unimportant starve to death. Again, whether you are in favor of the sanctions or not is actually irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that the sanctions, which did result in mass starvation of children, WERE a major (although secondary) cause of Muslim hatred toward the US in the late 90's and early 2000's.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Desmond,

How about you leave the American politics thread to posters who can actually properly read and understand English. You are better off lurking in the Cocodrilo thread waiting for my next report about barebacking chicas.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

I am sure he could shed some light on the Middle East situation

I've heard this account in the past, but I thought that this version posted on the USASexGuide.info was one of the best worded versions I've read, and so I thought it was worth repeating here.

[quote]An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.[/quote]Could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there is a test coming up. The mid-term election in 2010!

-----------------------------------------------

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "[i]You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.[/i]"

[QUOTE=Jackson]It's worth repeating

I've heard this account in the past, but I thought that this version posted on the USASexGuide. Info was one of the best worded versions I've read, and so I thought it was worth repeating here.[quote]An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a be. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.[/QUOTE]Could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there is a test coming up. The mid-term election in 2010!

-----------------------------------------------

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "[I]You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.[/i]"[/QUOTE][size=3][b]What part of[red] “It's Bush's Fault” [/red]don't you understand? [/size][/b]

The first few paragraphs from this Brett Stephens WSJ opinion piece, excerpted below, provide good examples of why the words "moderate" and "Muslim" frequently don't go together, even though the media tries to make it so. I still support their right to build a mosque two blocks from the former WTC, but these examples might be an ominous warning as to who the newest "moderate Muslim" imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, really is:

Items of interest in the news media's coverage of "moderate Muslims":

• The New York Times, Oct. 19, 2001: "Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia, one of the nation's largest. Is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West."

• NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Dec. 9, 2004: "It's the TV industry's newest experiment, 'Bridges TV,' billing itself the 'American-Muslim lifestyle network,' featuring movies, documentaries, cartoons. It's the brainchild of Aasiya Hassan, an architect, and her husband, Muzzamil Hassan, a banker, who are disturbed that negative images of Muslims seem to dominate TV, especially since 9/11."

• Boston Globe editorial, Aug. 4, 2010: "The simple fact is there's nothing threatening about the proposed Islamic center, which is being spearheaded by Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the most respected moderate Muslim leaders in the country."

See where this is going?

Most readers probably know of Awlaki as the U. S.-born imam who presided over the mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers. Awlaki also served as theological mentor to Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hassan, would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. President Obama has authorized the military to assassinate Awlaki, now thought to be living in Yemen.

As for Bridges TV, the saccharine story told by Brian Williams and reporter Ron Allen (complete with scenes of the family's domestic bliss in their modest home in Buffalo, N. Y. Came to an abrupt end in February 2009, when Mr. Hassan beheaded his wife after she had filed for divorce, evicted him from their home, and won an order of protection. Last week, Mr. Hassan's attorney defended her client on the grounds that he was, of all things, a "battered spouse."

Now we have the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque, opponents of which are being widely branded as bigots. As, no doubt, some of them are: There are bigots in any crowd.

Then again, is it bigoted to oppose bigots? Consider an interesting historical antecedent. In 1993, a controversy similar to the current one unfolded when residents of a Washington, D. C. Suburb sought to use zoning laws to shut down the local mosque, ostensibly on grounds that it was a traffic nuisance. "Worshipers of many faiths said closing the popular mosque would amount to discrimination against one of the area's fastest growing religions," the Washington Times reported at the time.

The mosque in question? None other than the Dar al-Hijra, later to be known as the "9/11 mosque." So were the petitioners who sought to shut it down bigots? Or is it that they got a whiff of its extremism, and didn't like the smell? "We are appalled at the ill will and friction," the paper quoted one Sylvia Johnson, "who said mosque-goers have yelled at her and blocked her driveway."

[QUOTE=Punter 127][size=3][b]What part of[red] “It's Bush's Fault” [/red]don't you understand? [/size][/b][/QUOTE]I don't understand what "Bush's Fault" had to do with Jackson's story.

I [I]do[/i] understand your remark as an irrelevant and gratuitous slap in the face for our host.

[QUOTE=Westy]I don't understand what "Bush's Fault" had to do with Jackson's story.

I [I]do[/i] understand your remark as an irrelevant and gratuitous slap in the face for our host.[/QUOTE]My take is that this was an "inside joke" comment.

But to take the issue of the cultural center or mosque near Ground Zero, it is the myopic fear of Americans that are on display here. There was hatred and fear of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor in 1941. Today, we buy Toyotas and Sonys, gobble up sushi without feeling guilty and think of of the Japanese as one the great cultures and one of our strongest allies. I am not saying that this is the scenerio that will play out in the immediate future with the Muslim nations. But the populations of the Muslim world suffers from a lack of exposure and education, and they are manupilated by emotion. But it seems we are suffering some of the same symtoms, too.

IMHO, 99.9% of American Muslims love America for the same reasons you do. So, the neighborhood is changing! But change is inevitable, and nobody, even the righteous mullah Newt Gringrich, is going to be able to stop history. And so the fear, anger and disgust come from the changing of America that we once knew. The Marlboro Man has come and gone. What is important is, know thyselves.