Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on May 29, 2011, 08:45:34 PM
-
You think the middle east respects Obama?
-
YES....but they respect any president of the U.S.
-
Not at all. They are laughing at him and waiting him out.
-
Not at all. They are laughing at him and waiting him out.
Seriously? You really believe that? You don't think they think he's just wrong about his position, purpose and approach?
-
He is hated and laughed at. Do you even read anything?
-
He is hated and laughed at. Do you even read anything?
they are afraid of him because he represents the unknown....he doesn't kowtow to them like other presidents have and he has put them on notice that he is not backing their illegitimate regimes unconditionally any more.....
He has told them they must reform...and that the U.S will back reform movements..this scares the shit out of them
-
He is hated and laughed at. Do you even read anything?
Yeah but do they respect him?
Also second question, do you think they think he is not a NBC?
-
I don't think he's respected at home, much less overseas.
-
YES....but they respect any president of the U.S.
LMFAO youre fuking retarded...
they dont respect any president, they respect few presidents and obama isnt one for fucking sure...
-
Who cares in the Middle East what Obama says?
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/who-cares-in-the-middle-east-what-obama-says-2290761.html
President Obama has shown himself to be weak in his dealings with the Middle East, says Robert Fisk, and the Arab world is turning its back with contempt. Its future will be shaped without American influence
Monday, 30 May 2011
This month, in the Middle East, has seen the unmaking of the President of the United States. More than that, it has witnessed the lowest prestige of America in the region since Roosevelt met King Abdul Aziz on the USS Quincy in the Great Bitter Lake in 1945.
While Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu played out their farce in Washington – Obama grovelling as usual – the Arabs got on with the serious business of changing their world, demonstrating and fighting and dying for freedoms they have never possessed. Obama waffled on about change in the Middle East – and about America's new role in the region. It was pathetic. "What is this 'role' thing?" an Egyptian friend asked me at the weekend. "Do they still believe we care about what they think?"
And it is true. Obama's failure to support the Arab revolutions until they were all but over lost the US most of its surviving credit in the region. Obama was silent on the overthrow of Ben Ali, only joined in the chorus of contempt for Mubarak two days before his flight, condemned the Syrian regime – which has killed more of its people than any other dynasty in this Arab "spring", save for the frightful Gaddafi – but makes it clear that he would be happy to see Assad survive, waves his puny fist at puny Bahrain's cruelty and remains absolutely, stunningly silent over Saudi Arabia. And he goes on his knees before Israel. Is it any wonder, then, that Arabs are turning their backs on America, not out of fury or anger, nor with threats or violence, but with contempt? It is the Arabs and their fellow Muslims of the Middle East who are themselves now making the decisions.
Related articles
• A rare taste of freedom as Egypt opens its doors to Gaza
• Syrian troops and tanks storm two 'rebel' towns
• Leading article: Israel has to accept that the Arab Spring changes the game
• Yemen leader accused of allowing Islamist takeover
Search the news archive for more stories
Turkey is furious with Assad because he twice promised to speak of reform and democratic elections – and then failed to honour his word. The Turkish government has twice flown delegations to Damascus and, according to the Turks, Assad lied to the foreign minister on the second visit, baldly insisting that he would recall his brother Maher's legions from the streets of Syrian cities. He failed to do so. The torturers continue their work.
Watching the hundreds of refugees pouring from Syria across the northern border of Lebanon, the Turkish government is now so fearful of a repeat of the great mass Iraqi Kurdish refugee tide that overwhelmed their border in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf war that it has drawn up its own secret plans to prevent the Kurds of Syria moving in their thousands into the Kurdish areas of south-eastern Turkey. Turkish generals have thus prepared an operation that would send several battalions of Turkish troops into Syria itself to carve out a "safe area" for Syrian refugees inside Assad's caliphate. The Turks are prepared to advance well beyond the Syrian border town of Al Qamishli – perhaps half way to Deir el-Zour (the old desert killing fields of the 1915 Armenian Holocaust, though speak it not) – to provide a "safe haven" for those fleeing the slaughter in Syria's cities.
The Qataris are meanwhile trying to prevent Algeria from resupplying Gaddafi with tanks and armoured vehicles – this was one of the reasons why the Emir of Qatar, the wisest bird in the Arabian Gulf, visited the Algerian president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, last week. Qatar is committed to the Libyan rebels in Benghazi; its planes are flying over Libya from Crete and – undisclosed until now – it has Qatari officers advising the rebels inside the city of Misrata in western Libya; but if Algerian armour is indeed being handed over to Gaddafi to replace the material that has been destroyed in air strikes, it would account for the ridiculously slow progress which the Nato campaign is making against Gaddafi.
Of course, it all depends on whether Bouteflika really controls his army – or whether the Algerian "pouvoir", which includes plenty of secretive and corrupt generals, are doing the deals. Algerian equipment is superior to Gaddafi's and thus for every tank he loses, Ghaddafi might be getting an improved model to replace it. Below Tunisia, Algeria and Libya share a 750-mile desert frontier, an easy access route for weapons to pass across the border.
But the Qataris are also attracting Assad's venom. Al Jazeera's concentration on the Syrian uprising – its graphic images of the dead and wounded far more devastating than anything our soft western television news shows would dare broadcast – has Syrian state television nightly spitting at the Emir and at the state of Qatar. The Syrian government has now suspended up to £4 billion of Qatari investment projects, including one belonging to the Qatar Electricity and Water Company.
Amid all these vast and epic events – Yemen itself may yet prove to be the biggest bloodbath of all, while the number of Syria's "martyrs" have now exceeded the victims of Mubarak's death squads five months ago – is it any surprise that the frolics of Messrs Netanyahu and Obama appear so irrelevant? Indeed, Obama's policy towards the Middle East – whatever it is – sometimes appears so muddled that it is scarcely worthy of study. He supports, of course, democracy – then admits that this may conflict with America's interests. In that wonderful democracy called Saudi Arabia, the US is now pushing ahead with a £40 billion arms deal and helping the Saudis to develop a new "elite" force to protect the kingdom's oil and future nuclear sites. Hence Obama's fear of upsetting Saudi Arabia, two of whose three leading brothers are now so incapacitated that they can no longer make sane decisions – unfortunately, one of these two happens to be King Abdullah – and his willingness to allow the Assad family's atrocity-prone regime to survive. Of course, the Israelis would far prefer the "stability" of the Syrian dictatorship to continue; better the dark caliphate you know than the hateful Islamists who might emerge from the ruins. But is this argument really good enough for Obama to support when the people of Syria are dying in the streets for the kind of democracy that the US president says he wants to see in the region?
One of the vainest elements of American foreign policy towards the Middle East is the foundational idea that the Arabs are somehow more stupid than the rest of us, certainly than the Israelis, more out of touch with reality than the West, that they don't understand their own history. Thus they have to be preached at, lectured, and cajoled by La Clinton and her ilk – much as their dictators did and do, father figures guiding their children through life. But Arabs are far more literate than they were a generation ago; millions speak perfect English and can understand all too well the political weakness and irrelevance in the president's words. Listening to Obama's 45-minute speech this month – the "kick off' to four whole days of weasel words and puffery by the man who tried to reach out to the Muslim world in Cairo two years ago, and then did nothing – one might have thought that the American President had initiated the Arab revolts, rather than sat on the sidelines in fear.
There was an interesting linguistic collapse in the president's language over those critical four days. On Thursday 19 May, he referred to the continuation of Israeli "settlements". A day later, Netanyahu was lecturing him on "certain demographic changes that have taken place on the ground". Then when Obama addressed the American Aipac lobby group (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) on the Sunday, he had cravenly adopted Netanyahu's own preposterous expression. Now he, too, spoke of "new demographic realities on the ground." Who would believe that he was talking about internationally illegal Jewish colonies built on land stolen from Arabs in one of the biggest property heists in the history of "Palestine"? Delay in peace-making will undermine Israeli security, Obama announced – apparently unaware that Netanyahu's project is to go on delaying and delaying and delaying until there is no land left for the "viable" Palestinian state which the United States and the European Union supposedly wish to see.
Then we had the endless waffle about the 1967 borders. Netanyahu called them "defenceless" (though they seemed to have been pretty defendable for the 18 years prior to the Six Day War) and Obama – oblivious to the fact that Israel must be the only country in the world to have an eastern land frontier but doesn't know where it is – then says he was misunderstood when he talked about 1967. It doesn't matter what he says. George W Bush caved in years ago when he gave Ariel Sharon a letter which stated America's acceptance of "already existing major Israeli population centres" beyond the 1967 lines. To those Arabs prepared to listen to Obama's spineless oration, this was a grovel too far. They simply could not understand the reaction of Netanyahu's address to Congress. How could American politicians rise and applaud Netanyahu 55 times – 55 times – with more enthusiasm than one of the rubber parliaments of Assad, Saleh and the rest?
And what on earth did the Great Speechifier mean when he said that "every country has the right to self-defence" but that Palestine would be "demilitarised"? What he meant was that Israel could go on attacking the Palestinians (as in 2009, for example, when Obama was treacherously silent) while the Palestinians would have to take what was coming to them if they did not behave according to the rules – because they would have no weapons to defend themselves. As for Netanyahu, the Palestinians must choose between unity with Hamas or peace with Israel. All of which was very odd. When there was no unity, Netanyahu told us all that he had no Palestinian interlocutor because the Palestinians were disunited. Yet when they unite, they are disqualified from peace talks.
Of course, cynicism grows the longer you live in the Middle East. I recall, for example, travelling to Gaza in the early 1980s when Yasser Arafat was running his PLO statelet in Beirut. Anxious to destroy Arafat's prestige in the occupied territories, the Israeli government decided to give its support to an Islamist group in Gaza called Hamas. In fact, I actually saw with my own eyes the head of the Israeli army's Southern Command negotiating with bearded Hamas officials, giving them permission to build more mosques. It's only fair to say, of course, that we were also busy at the time, encouraging a certain Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan. But the Israelis did not give up on Hamas. They later held another meeting with the organisation in the West Bank; the story was on the front page of the Jerusalem Post the next day. But there wasn't a whimper from the Americans.
Then another moment that I can recall over the long years. Hamas and Islamic Jihad members – all Palestinians – were, in the early 1990s, thrown across the Israeli border into southern Lebanon where they spent more than a year camping on a freezing mountainside. I would visit them from time to time and on one occasion mentioned that I would be travelling to Israel next day. Immediately, one of the Hamas men ran to his tent and returned with a notebook. He then proceeded to give me the home telephone numbers of three senior Israeli politicians – two of whom are still prominent today – and, when I reached Jerusalem and called the numbers, they all turned out to be correct. In other words, the Israeli government had been in personal and direct contact with Hamas.
But now the narrative has been twisted out of all recognition. Hamas are the super-terrorists, the "al-Qa'ida" representatives in the unified Palestinian leadership, the men of evil who will ensure that no peace ever takes place between Palestinians and Israeli. If only this were true, the real al-Qa'ida would be more than happy to take responsibility. But it is not true. In the same context, Obama stated that the Palestinians would have to answer questions about Hamas. But why should they? What Obama and Netanyahu think about Hamas is now irrelevant to them. Obama warns the Palestinians not to ask for statehood at the United Nations in September. But why on earth not? If the people of Egypt and Tunisia and Yemen and Libya and Syria – we are all waiting for the next revolution (Jordan? Bahrain again? Morocco?) – can fight for freedom and dignity, why shouldn't the Palestinians? Lectured for decades on the need for non-violent protest, the Palestinians elect to go to the UN with their cry for legitimacy – only to be slapped down by Obama.
Having read all of the "Palestine Papers" which Al-Jazeera revealed, there is no doubt that "Palestine's" official negotiators will go to any lengths to produce some kind of statelet. Mahmoud Abbas, who managed to write a 600-page book on the "peace process" without once mentioning the word "occupation", could even cave in over the UN project, fearful of Obama's warning that it would be an attempt to "isolate" Israel and thus de-legitimise the Israeli state – or "the Jewish state" as the US president now calls it. But Netanyahu is doing more than anyone to delegitimise his own state; indeed, he is looking more and more like the Arab buffoons who have hitherto littered the Middle East. Mubarak saw a "foreign hand" in the Egyptian revolution (Iran, of course). So did the Crown Prince of Bahrain (Iran again). So did Gaddafi (al-Qa'ida, western imperialism, you name it), So did Saleh of Yemen (al-Qa'ida, Mossad and America). So did Assad of Syria (Islamism, probably Mossad, etc). And so does Netanyahu (Iran, naturally enough, Syria, Lebanon, just about anyone you can think of except for Israel itself).
But as this nonsense continues, so the tectonic plates shudder. I doubt very much if the Palestinians will remain silent. If there's an "intifada" in Syria, why not a Third Intifada in "Palestine"? Not a struggle of suicide bombers but of mass, million-strong protests. If the Israelis have to shoot down a mere few hundred demonstrators who tried – and in some cases succeeded – in crossing the Israeli border almost two weeks ago, what will they do if confronted by thousands or a million. Obama says no Palestinian state must be declared at the UN. But why not? Who cares in the Middle East what Obama says? Not even, it seems, the Israelis. The Arab spring will soon become a hot summer and there will be an Arab autumn, too. By then, the Middle East may have changed forever. What America says will matter nothing.
-
You think the middle east respects Obama?
NO, HIS RATINGS NOW ARE EVEN WORSE THAN GWB!
-
BUMP
-
Im pretty sure AQ and OBL respects him. Those that have survived that is
-
Im pretty sure AQ and OBL respects him. Those that have survived that is
::)
-
::)
::) all you want Obama well our military is killing AQ like flies and you claimed Obama would strenghten them.
Wrong again hater
-
::) all you want Obama well our military is killing AQ like flies and you claimed Obama would strenghten them.
Wrong again hater
Obama put the MB into power in Egypt and Lybia - he owns this disaster.
-
Obama put the MB into power in Egypt and Lybia - he owns this disaster.
Sure he did.
The egyptians had nothing to do with it.
Thats why we have invaded Egypt right?
-
Sure he did.
The egyptians had nothing to do with it.
Thats why we have invaded Egypt right?
We spent BILLIONS ousting Mubarack and putting the MB into power remember douchebag?
-
We spent BILLIONS ousting Mubarack and putting the MB into power remember douchebag?
Billions?
Do you have a source? And please dont copy paste on of your usual crap written by some GOP lobbyist again its getting really old.
And even so i dont see you complaining when we entered Iraq etc were we lost AMERICAN LIVES. But that was a Repub president so its okay. You really are pathetic.
-
Sure he did.
The egyptians had nothing to do with it.
Thats why we have invaded Egypt right?
You need to look into what part the CIA played in the whole thing via google et al. There was a lot of coordinated shit, the problem being the dumbass's who orchestrated this didn't count on the Muslim Brotherhood taking shit over
-
You need to look into what part the CIA played in the whole thing via google et al. There was a lot of coordinated shit, the problem being the dumbass's who orchestrated this didn't count on the Muslim Brotherhood taking shit over
Oh yes they did. Obama knew from day 1, and many of us posted here from the moment this BS started that was obama's plan all alobng.
-
You need to look into what part the CIA played in the whole thing via google et al. There was a lot of coordinated shit, the problem being the dumbass's who orchestrated this didn't count on the Muslim Brotherhood taking shit over
This i believe.
-
Obama helped spread democracy in the mid-east....which is what we always wanted...sometimes we don't like the results but ya gotta live with them
-
Obama helped spread democracy in the mid-east....which is what we always wanted...sometimes we don't like the results but ya gotta live with them
Muslim laws is not democracy
-
Muslim laws is not democracy
its not but thats not our fault....every one has a right to choose their leaders....even the Germans put Hitler in office
-
its not but thats not our fault....every one has a right to choose their leaders....even the Germans put Hitler in office
STFU moron.
Obama and the worthless apologists who cried in joy like you did when obama collapsed the ME own this mess.
-
STFU moron.
Obama and the worthless apologists who cried in joy like you did when obama collapsed the ME own this mess.
the stupidity just keeps on flowing from that brain(?) of yours
-
its not but thats not our fault....every one has a right to choose their leaders....even the Germans put Hitler in office
That's a great analogy...Obama helped guys like Hitler take over Egypt. Say goodbye to the 1978 treaties with Israel...say goodbye to women's right in Egypt...say goodbye to any semblance of stabiltity in the Middle East
-
its not but thats not our fault....every one has a right to choose their leaders....even the Germans put Hitler in office
True the election might be somewhat democratic but a government and court system based on muslim law is not = democracy
-
That's a great analogy...Obama helped guys like Hitler take over Egypt. Say goodbye to the 1978 treaties with Israel...say goodbye to women's right in Egypt...say goodbye to any semblance of stabiltity in the Middle East
stability???....there never can be stability when people are suppressed by dictators...things always appear calm on the surface of these regimes because the dictator runs the newspapers, tv stations etc...
Mubarak and Ghaddafi got what was eventually coming to them by not reforming..they caused this to happen....you guys are so anti-obama you want to blame him for everything...you probably blamed him the last time you couldn't get an erection
-
stability???....there never can be stability when people are suppressed by dictators...things always appear calm on the surface of these regimes because the dictator runs the newspapers, tv stations etc...
Mubarak and Ghaddafi got what was eventually coming to them by not reforming..they caused this to happen....you guys are so anti-obama you want to blame him for everything...you probably blamed him the last time you couldn't get an erection
::) ::) ::)
You really are pathetic. If obama ordered you back into slavery you would do so gleefully.
-
stability???....there never can be stability when people are suppressed by dictators...things always appear calm on the surface of these regimes because the dictator runs the newspapers, tv stations etc...
Mubarak and Ghaddafi got what was eventually coming to them by not reforming..they caused this to happen....you guys are so anti-obama you want to blame him for everything...you probably blamed him the last time you couldn't get an erection
True
-
andreheisman...you really don't understand this issue at all. The issue isn't the dictator or their removal..the issue is the plan of action after they're gone. The US took out Hussein in 2003 because the commitment was there to see a stabile governemnt take his place. He wasn't taken out in 1991 because George H Bush didn't know who would be leading the country in his place. You don't overthrow a government that is sympathetic to you (Mubarek) or under your thumb (Ghadaffi) if you don't know who or what is going to replace them. All you're doing is creating a vacuum where virtually anything can happen...
-
andreheisman...you really don't understand this issue at all. The issue isn't the dictator or their removal..the issue is the plan of action after they're gone. The US took out Hussein in 2003 because the commitment was there to see a stabile governemnt take his place. He wasn't taken out in 1991 because George H Bush didn't know who would be leading the country in his place. You don't overthrow a government that is sympathetic to you (Mubarek) or under your thumb (Ghadaffi) if you don't know who or what is going to replace them. All you're doing is creating a vacuum where virtually anything can happen...
we didn't "overthrow" anything.....if you want to blame anyone, blame Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook..... :)....we only intervened in Libya because they had already begun the fighting to overthrow Ghadafi....at first, as you so conveniently forget, Obama DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED...he had to be persuaded by Hillary Clinton and the NATO allies.....only after it looked like Ghadafi was going to slaughter the population (as he vowed to do) did Obama get involved...
WOW..EPIC CHANGING OF HISTORY ON YOUR PART
Also we conveniently forget again that Bush took out Saddam in 2003....yet look at the government that has replaced Saddam......they are not a model of democracy either..better than Saddam..but not a model by any means...and they are becoming allied with Iran..things don't always work out the way you think..he U.S. is not perfect and cannot control events like you think we can.....
If big countries truly had that power the Soviet Union woulds still be in existence
PLEASE GO READ UP ON HISTORY...I am destroying you in this thread
-
You are destroying nothing but your father's good name by publicly displaying your lack of comprehension...
We actively assisted the overthrow of Mubarak...we bombed Ghadaffi's troops when the rebellion was all but dead and gave it new life. We had little or no idea who or what would take the place of either government. we jsut went in their willy-nilly and changed the politics. This is criminally irresponsible...
So far as Iraq goes... stablized the day to day lifes of millions of men, women and childre who no longer have to wonder if today is the day they're going to be fed into a wood chipper because they didn't bow to the local Baathist quickly enough. That's a win.
Iran is a problem...a problem largely created by Jimmy Carter...but a problem that will have to be dealt with sooner or later
-
Watch and learn cult member
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
we didn't "overthrow" anything.....if you want to blame anyone, blame Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook..... :)....we only intervened in Libya because they had already begun the fighting to overthrow Ghadafi....at first, as you so conveniently forget, Obama DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED...he had to be persuaded by Hillary Clinton and the NATO allies.....only after it looked like Ghadafi was going to slaughter the population (as he vowed to do) did Obama get involved...
WOW..EPIC CHANGING OF HISTORY ON YOUR PART
Also we conveniently forget again that Bush took out Saddam in 2003....yet look at the government that has replaced Saddam......they are not a model of democracy either..better than Saddam..but not a model by any means...and they are becoming allied with Iran..things don't always work out the way you think..he U.S. is not perfect and cannot control events like you think we can.....
If big countries truly had that power the Soviet Union woulds still be in existence
PLEASE GO READ UP ON HISTORY...I am destroying you in this thread
-
You are destroying nothing but your father's good name by publicly displaying your lack of comprehension...
We actively assisted the overthrow of Mubarak...we bombed Ghadaffi's troops when the rebellion was all but dead and gave it new life. We had little or no idea who or what would take the place of either government. we jsut went in their willy-nilly and changed the politics. This is criminally irresponsible...
So far as Iraq goes... stablized the day to day lifes of millions of men, women and childre who no longer have to wonder if today is the day they're going to be fed into a wood chipper because they didn't bow to the local Baathist quickly enough. That's a win.
Iran is a problem...a problem largely created by Jimmy Carter...but a problem that will have to be dealt with sooner or later
We helped ease Mubarak out of power after we saw he could no longer control his own people anymore....but credit goes to the PEOPLE who overthrew him.....Obama did not wake up one morning and say "you know..I think I'll overthrow Mubarak today"....same with Libya....and the NATO allies (France, Britain, Italy) were bombing Libya way before we got involved.....how come you don't blame them for anything and put everything on Obama???....as for Obama bombing Libya when the rebels were almost beaten..we are both saying the same thing on this...I said that Obama intervened when Ghadafi said he was going to destroy everyone who participated..thats when we got involved to save the country from a massacre.....
As for the Iran problem being created by Jimmy Carter....how old are you???????....the Shah of Iran created this problem again by staying in power for thirty years and not reforming....
THE DESTRUCTION CONTINUES
-
We helped remove an ally from power when we had no idea what we were getting in terms of a replacement. You canot deny that...spin it any fucking way you'd like, but that's reality.
And yes...or problems in Iran began with Carter. He bought into this bullshit that the Shah was repressing students...students my ass...they were fundamentalists who sought to overthorw his government. Rather than supporting him and encouraging reforms to make an easy transistion to a non theocratic government, we pulled the rug out from under him and gave power to the mullahs. Then we compounded that idiocy by allowing him to settle here, thus pissing off the people we jsut helped to the point that they began to refer to us as the "great satan". So now we find ourslves with one of these "students" mere steps away from getting nuclear weapons.
yeah...Carter fucked up in 1979 and Obama is fuckingup in 2012...
-
We helped remove an ally from power when we had no idea what we were getting in terms of a replacement. You canot deny that...spin it any fucking way you'd like, but that's reality.
And yes...or problems in Iran began with Carter. He bought into this bullshit that the Shah was repressing students...students my ass...they were fundamentalists who sought to overthorw his government. Rather than supporting him and encouraging reforms to make an easy transistion to a non theocratic government, we pulled the rug out from under him and gave power to the mullahs. Then we compounded that idiocy by allowing him to settle here, thus pissing off the people we jsut helped to the point that they began to refer to us as the "great satan". So now we find ourslves with one of these "students" mere steps away from getting nuclear weapons.
yeah...Carter fucked up in 1979 and Obama is fuckingup in 2012...
sigh...your memory is so faulty it's amazing....you say the Shah wasn't repressing his people?..you don't stay in power thirty years without fucking people over...the Shah had a secret police and tortured people you simpleton.....as did his father....and you say Jimmy Carter started the revolution that brought him down???this is a really embarrassing statement to make.....Once a dictator loses control of his people he is done for....look at whats happening now in Syria.....how come the Russians and chinese can't stop the bloodshed there?...because big powers have very little influence once the people lose respect for their rulers...and we didn't allow the Shah to settle here as you said....he needed emergency medical treatment and Carter decided to let him in the country as a humanitarian gesture.....that's what started hostage crisis....
THE DESTRUCTION CONTINUES YOU MORON!!!!!
-
Are you really this obtuse, or am I catching you on the wrong day(s)...at no point did I claim Carter started an Islamic revolution...I don't have much time today, but for the love of God, try to muster those four brain cells you have and get them tasked towards reading comprehension...
In the mid to late 1970's the Shah came under fire for human rights abuses against "student protestors". These protestors were Islamic fundamentalists bent on toppling his government...they should have been persecuted.. As the Iranian people became disaffected with the Shah, we did nothing to support him because Carter had bought into the notion that he was needlessly abusing these poor students. We completely pulled the rug out from under a very strong ally in a very unstable region and did nothing to manage the aftermath. As a result, a virulently anti-American regime took over that used our harboring the Shah as a pretext to commit an act of war against us by taking over our embassy and holding our citizens hostage. Today, that regime exports terror, has killed American personnel in Iraq and is closing in on nuclear weapons. Carter mismanaged Iran...he allowed world opinin to supercede our interests in the overthrow of an ally and did nothing to protect our interests.
If you can't see a parallel between those events and Obama's mishandling of Egypt and Lybia...you are even dumber than I think
-
-
We helped remove an ally from power when we had no idea what we were getting in terms of a replacement. You canot deny that...spin it any fucking way you'd like, but that's reality.
And yes...or problems in Iran began with Carter. He bought into this bullshit that the Shah was repressing students...students my ass...they were fundamentalists who sought to overthorw his government. Rather than supporting him and encouraging reforms to make an easy transistion to a non theocratic government, we pulled the rug out from under him and gave power to the mullahs. Then we compounded that idiocy by allowing him to settle here, thus pissing off the people we jsut helped to the point that they began to refer to us as the "great satan". So now we find ourslves with one of these "students" mere steps away from getting nuclear weapons.
yeah...Carter fucked up in 1979 and Obama is fuckingup in 2012...
I like this flipper guy.....u people need to read your history, explain to how exactly this doesn't mirror 1979? Arabs respect strength, much like our muslim brothers here in Afghanistan. When we leave those in the middle will either back the Taliban or whatever looks like the former Northern Alliance. Obama has no Bush playbook for this to go off of. They have hamstrung the CIA, JSOC is a damm household word...and Barry skips his intell briefings to bang his moose wife or golf.
-
I like this flipper guy.....u people need to read your history, explain to how exactly this doesn't mirror 1979? Arabs respect strength, much like our muslim brothers here in Afghanistan. When we leave those in the middle will either back the Taliban or whatever looks like the former Northern Alliance. Obama has no Bush playbook for this to go off of. They have hamstrung the CIA, JSOC is a damm household word...and Barry skips his intell briefings to bang his moose wife or golf.
According to the piece of trash like blacken andre lurtker, et al obama is NEVER to blame for anything.
-
Sunshine, unicorns and fountains of chocolate milk.
-
Sunshine, unicorns and fountains of chocolate milk.
Obama and his cult of sheep and trash are going to be the end of us
-
Are you really this obtuse, or am I catching you on the wrong day(s)...at no point did I claim Carter started an Islamic revolution...I don't have much time today, but for the love of God, try to muster those four brain cells you have and get them tasked towards reading comprehension...
In the mid to late 1970's the Shah came under fire for human rights abuses against "student protestors". These protestors were Islamic fundamentalists bent on toppling his government...they should have been persecuted.. As the Iranian people became disaffected with the Shah, we did nothing to support him because Carter had bought into the notion that he was needlessly abusing these poor students. We completely pulled the rug out from under a very strong ally in a very unstable region and did nothing to manage the aftermath. As a result, a virulently anti-American regime took over that used our harboring the Shah as a pretext to commit an act of war against us by taking over our embassy and holding our citizens hostage. Today, that regime exports terror, has killed American personnel in Iraq and is closing in on nuclear weapons. Carter mismanaged Iran...he allowed world opinin to supercede our interests in the overthrow of an ally and did nothing to protect our interests.
If you can't see a parallel between those events and Obama's mishandling of Egypt and Lybia...you are even dumber than I think
I wish I knew where you were so I could come over and rape you in your ass for being so naive......by your calculations, the people over there are never to blame for anything....it is always the fault of the American President.....you act as if nothing in the world can happen unless the American president says it can.....by your reasoning. how come the Russians could not hold on to Eastern Europe???...Ronald Reagan was a good president but even he was taken by surprise when the Iron Curtain fell......not everything happens because the POTUS makes a wish...
Dictators lose control simply because they stay too long.....the only guy who avoided this fate was Fidel Castro...who the people still love to some extent...Once a dictator who is a US ally loses control of their people, they become useless......same thing happened to Fernando Marcos of the Phillipines....the US kissed him goodbye once the people there got sick of him and there was no turning back....
-
I didnt know you were on the down lo like Vince and blacken.
Now i see why you love those clowns.
I wish I knew where you were so I could come over and rape you in your ass for being so naive......by your calculations, the people over there are never to blame for anything....it is always the fault of the American President.....you act as if nothing in the world can happen unless the American president says it can.....by your reasoning. how come the Russians could not hold on to Eastern Europe???...Ronald Reagan was a good president but even he was taken by surprise when the Iron Curtain fell......not everything happens because the POTUS makes a wish...
Dictators lose control simply because they stay too long.....the only guy who avoided this fate was Fidel Castro...who the people still love to some extent...Once a dictator who is a US ally loses control of their people, they become useless......same thing happened to Fernando Marcos of the Phillipines....the US kissed him goodbye once the people there got sick of him and there was no turning back....
-
I didnt know you were on the down lo like Vince and blacken.
Now i see why you love those clowns.
you WOULD LOVE for a brother to be on top of you as well....thats why your angry
-
you WOULD LOVE for a brother to be on top of you as well....thats why your angry
I'm angry because we have a kenyan communist layabout destroying our country.
-
God what a homo...rape me in the ass? Yep...I'd say your complete meltdown here is proof positive of my superiority on this topic. So...go enjoy your homo fanatasies and let the adults discuss the serious topics
-
God what a homo...rape me in the ass? Yep...I'd say your complete meltdown here is proof positive of my superiority on this topic. So...go enjoy your homo fanatasies and let the adults discuss the serious topics
superiority?????..you've been totally destroyed in this thread.....limp out of here and go to the sex board where you can masturbate and go to sleep
-
Destroyed? By a mental midget who responds to logic with non-sequiters and homoerotic fantasies? Go home and get your fucking shine box...