The middle east....the 51st state

I think that maybe someone should tell Obama that those people in the middle east, beside the US soldiers of course, can't vote. So it would seem to me that unless he is taking some personal time off to go visit family members over there that there really isn't a reason to be over there hob nob'in' with various Palestinian, Israeli, Pakistani factions, or anyone else unless they got an American flag sown into their sleeve. It really doesn't matter what they think of him...If Hamas or Hezbolla hates him, is it really going to change your vote? If Pakistan comes out and says that Obama is a jerk, are you really going to reevaluated whether or not you vote for him? I didn't know Kuwait had that much sway over American peoples vote for a president.


The more time he spends away the less time we have to actually to ask the hard hitting questions, the ones that he has been avoiding or been amazingly vague about.
1.Like how do you plan to win the war,
2.what if Iran continues to throw up the middle finger do you possess the nerve to reach over and snap the finger,
3.what about the economy,
4.how are you lowering gas prices because your parties ideas really haven't helped me a whole ton.
5.The food shortage what is your fix all plan there?
6.The housing crisis is a major issue as well, any ideas Obama?
7.How about a VP any candidates, or should I start playing 20 questions? I really dislike how secretive you are about it
8.Taxes are high, you gonna lower them anytime soon?
9.Finally, so you promise all this cool stuff, lets see a good business presentation that explains how you are going to put in place, pay for, and utilize to our advantage. I would like charts, diagrams, pie charts, flow charts ,numbers and all the trimmings that would go into a business presentation for a job.

Its all well and good that your over there kicking it with your Islamic school buds, but over here we are still waiting for some answers....

Oh I am sorry people are you now offended because I dropped in some Islamic jokes....should I throw a couple fuddy duddy jokes about McCain in the next piece to even things out?

I know I know making fun of the fact that Obama went to a radical Islamic school really isn't funny, because while some of his classmates went on to become engineers and make very simple yet very destructive bombs and other things, Obama took a higher calling and found the Lord by listening to the tranquil voice of Rev. Wright, who preached of love and forgiveness right along side his messages of hate and disparity.

Well folks that you have it, in my opinion comrade Obama in all his self glory.
Permalink
tags: obama, middle, east
posted on Tue, Jul 29, 2008 09:11 PM
CommentsRSS Feed
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account
You missed on your 1st question... byEd.5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
JB--Good post...except question #1. He doesn't have a plan for winning the war because he doesn't plan to win it. He is committed to quitting! He won't admit he was wrong in voting against the surge nor will he admit it is working. We are so close to victory and establishing a stabilizing presence in the Middle East and he is hell-bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
RE: You missed on your 1st question... byWalkerBozemanRanger4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
there are some really ignorant sentiments in some of these comments, but the one i'm choosing to go after is this one: "winning the war in iraq".

who are we beating? al-qaeda? the sunnis? the shia? iran? the kurds? what does it even mean: "to win in iraq"?

then this garbage about "he didn't support the surge, and now the surge is working"... the fallacy is in the last part, where people say that the surge is working. it's not. sure, there is a higher level of security - i'd hope that that would be the case anywhere that we drop 30,000 american troops. but the goal of the surge was to give "breathing room" to the iraqi politicians so that they could come up with a political settlement between all three groups and begin to move forward towards peace and reconciliation, and most importantly - sharing petrodollars.

what part of "U.S. and Iraqi forces wall off threats in Sadr City" sounds like peace and reconciliation? (reuters). If that link doesn't work, just go to Reuters.com and look under "Featured Crisis".

truth: there's nothing simple about iraq. blanket statements like "the surge is working" or "he wants to lose the war" are completely dumb, and you do yourself and others a disservice by speaking about the topic without having anything more to say than the sound bites you heard on CNN or Fox News.
RE: You missed on your 1st question... byEd.4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
There are too many of you who would not admit that success is being achieved because you've got too much invested in defeat. Get over it.
RE: You missed on your 1st question... byjohnbrownraider4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
No I think that you have listened to quite enough NPR for a life time....but how about protecting the American way of life.....isn't that why we always fight wars? I few exceptions, but for the most part that is the reason.
RE: You missed on your 1st question... byWalkerBozemanRanger4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
@Ed.: i believe i acknowledged our success in increasing security in Baghdad, and somewhat beyond. but the sunni awakening also is responsible for the decrease in violence, as well as Muqtada al-Sadr ordering his militia troops to stand down. and none of that changes the fact that we are now 18 months past the original announcement of the suge, and there has been very little movement in way of achieving political reconciliation between the 3 main irai groups.

@JBR: you are fooling yourself if you believe that most wars we fight are to protect the american way of life. some of them are, and i respect the men and women who stood up and made the hard decision to send american troops to battle in those instances.

i appreciate the fact that since you disagree with me, you might want to target a news organization that you think i listen to, but i don't listen to or read NPR news.

let me restate my question: "who are we beating in iraq?"

and since you brought it up, how exactly are we protecting the american way of life, by fighting in iraq? i believe we are putting the american way of life in further danger by being there.
RE: You missed on your 1st question... byEd.4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
What is the reason al-Sadr ordered a "stand down"?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121786142643310131.html?mod=
kind of sounds that way..... byjohnbrownraider5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I know, but i was rather hoping that I would give him the benefit of the doubt. I think that he is like the whole dems as a party, so bent on getting back in control they fail to come up with a plan, besides hating on bush....not a great party platform
#3 byEd.5 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
It looks like he has given us another answer:

Obanomics is spelled S-O-C-I-A-L-I-A-S-M.
RE: #3 bydanie0065 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
Show me how Obama's economic plan related to socialism? Those kinds of blatant and unfounded smear statements make absolutely no sense.
RE: #3 byEd.5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
It's not blatant (well, maybe a little...I'm not sure how you define blatant), unfounded or a smear. It is his own words. Unless he doesn't mean what he says, the foundation is his campaign, and unless being held accountable for your own words is called a smear, it's not.

You can't make a statement and then, when someone holds you to account for it, call it unfounded or smear...that is, unless you don't really mean what you say and you expect us to know that and give you a pass.

I just had an "aha" moment...it's all clear to me. My apologies. I take it back.
Questions are moot byEd.5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Sorry, JB, but your post is no longer relevent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07
The middle east- the 51st state bygaryt5 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
What I find interesting is that Obama has time to visit with hamas & hezbollah but can't find the time to visit our own troops in Germany.
RE: The middle east- the 51st state byjohnbrownraider5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
actually i don't know if he visited them or not...i think he visited hezbolla but not hamas....or vise versa
RE: The middle east- the 51st state byEd.5 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
One, both, neither...he didn't visit the troops! He's and empty suit; all hat and no cattle.
RE: The middle east- the 51st state bycowgirlmedic5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
Not that I am Pro-Obama or anything, but he did visit the troops in Afghanistan. One of my Army buddies saw him...and like me...wasn't impressed
The middle east- the 51st state bygaryt5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I need to clear up a few points. If Obama visited with the leaders of Palistine he spend time with hamas since they are the party in power over there. danie006 here are a few examples of socialism in case you didn't know: taxing the rich and giving to the poor, taking guns away from the citizens, having the government pay for all services such as health care, food, getting rid of all religions and not allowng the people of that country to do anything without asking permission.
RE: The middle east- the 51st state bydanie0065 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
I never heard Obama mention that that was his plan. I'll have to pay closer attention.

Getting rid of all religions? That's pretty rough.

I'd be up for a little healthcare restructuring - government controlled or not, just something other than the unaffordable junk that presently exists.

Taxing the rich and giving to the poor - sure. We're already doing that with the current admin.

Taking guns away? I heard the ads on the radio. Obama is all for hunting. I suppose I could start hunting with the Glock G23.

Asking for permission to do everything? Again, I think we're already there.

Good thing I'm writing in my vote for Ron Paul. He'll save the day.
RE: The middle east- the 51st state byWalkerBozemanRanger4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
you assert that since he spent time in palestine, he must've spent time with Hamas, since they're the party in power.

but you've got it somewhat wrong: since 6/14/2007, Hamas (and the elected palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh) is in charge of the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank is run by the Fatah party, and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. These parties are not exactly friendly to one another.

the end result is that while in the middle-east, Obama met with several leaders, including Benjamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas, Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert, Saeb Erekat, and Ehud Barak. But he did not meet with Haniyeh, or anyone else from Hamas, or anyone from Hizbollah, the Lebanese militia.
Obama is fake... byjohnbrownraider5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Everything he stands for is fake. The real Obama would never have gotten the Dems. nomination and would have no chance to win. So like Kerry, Obama needs to try to be someone he is not, so he begins to make mistakes.....he has to make his party happy, by being all anti war, anti bush, anti capitalism, but also he needs a outside shot at winning....so he has to change....
Good point, JB... byEd.5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
All we hear from him is how everything the McCain campaign does or says is either personal attacks or racist, but he can't finish a sentence w/o saying McCain represents 4 more years of Bush. He knows it's a LIE...few Republicans who are really Republicans have caused Pres. Bush more grief...but he has to create that image so he can promote his notion of change. His latest ploy is to try to link McCain to VP Cheney, whom he thinks is hated more than Pres. Bush. He wants us to think McCain is in bed with the oil companies, but he never mentions he has taken over $400k in contributions from oil company executives! Also, he plans to GIVE everyone a $1k stimulus check which he plans to fund by taxing the oil companies...does anyone think that will bring down our gas prices?

BTW, I am not now nor have I ever been racist, but I'm tempted. If everytime I oppose a candidate who is neither white nor black, but who has a dark skin, I am going to be called racist, then I might as well live it.

If I am told ahead of time what I'm going to say and that when I say it, that will prove I'm racist, then race relations in our country have descended to a new low...and it isn't Republicans who are doing it. Has everyone forgotten that it was the Democrats who opposed equal rights in the '60's and Republicans who fought for racial equality.
Obama -vs- McCain bycwrite5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I have voted in every Pres. election since I came of age.
This is the first Pres. election I'm considering not voting at all.
I'm not excited about either candidate. I don't think either has enough business experience to be in charge of govt policy on American business.
As Clinton used to say, "It's the economy, stupid." (Or some such.)
And it's the economy (oil, health care) everyone's griping about currently
plus foreign policy (war). So, if I vote, it will be more a vote
'against' the other candidate than 'for' the one I mark.
Don't give up byEd.5 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Cwrite, I understand your frustration. Neither candidate seems to be the exciting proospective leader I would want either. I think we can look back over our history and find many who were elected who fit that description yet turned out pretty good. Most noteably, Ronald Reagan, who benefitted from an incredibly bad economy and from having Jimmy Carter as an oponent. He wound up being one of the best we've ever had.

I've heard many say they're not voting for anyone, but their vote will go to whomever because they're voting against the other fellow. I'm not sure that's an altogether bad situation. If one candidate stands for everything you oppose, why not vote for the one who, however unappealing he may be overall, at least stands for a few of the things you like.

I'm don't know how many elections have passed since you "came of age", but unless it's only 1-2, there are many folks who can't say that.

I look at McCain and I'm not impressed w/ his understanding of the economy. At the same time, I see Obama promising to raise taxes on everyone. Walk down Main St. and ask any business owner if he would be more successful if he had to pay more taxes. Whatever my opinion of the Iraq war is, we are there and we have made a tremendous amount of progress. I want to see our troops home, but how we go about it means something to them and to the country. Obama says QUIT, McCain says WIN. If there were no other good reason to vote for either, the subject of judicial appointments would be a clear, deciding factor.

A final point: If there is nothing to like about either, Reid & Pelosi would make me vote for McCain. It seems apparent that they will still be in control in 2009. The thought of 2 more or 4 more years of their leadership w/o anyone to oppose them is not just scary, it's dangerous.

In Montana, it is not a cliche to say "Every vote counts". A Democrat in Texas or a Republican in New York might be able to argue that his/hers didn't. Given the results of the electoral college the past two elections, it's not unreasonable to argue that Montana could be the deciding vote and the demographics of this state suggest that each person's vote could make a difference.

It is probably obvious that I oppose Obama...therefore, I will vote for McCain. Even if you disagree w/ MHBMAO on these two, your vote still counts and everyone should exercise that right and responsibility.

See you at the polls.
American way of life byjohnbrownraider4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Now I said most wars were to protect the American way of life while many times that isn't a bad thing, we have a tenancy not to life other nations to get to powerful...it scares us...or to fight on small or ill conceived notions...examples

Mexican American War, we antagonized the Mexicans to attack us then said they were the aggressors and away we went. When in truth it was the other way around.

Cuban War, went to war on a ill conceived notion that they blew our steamer. When in truth it now appears that it was a boiler malfunction.

Civil War, went to war after the south broke away, however, it was at the time it was illegal for Abe Lincoln to try to hold stop them according to the constitution it was an agreement between the States. He then used the Emancipation Proclamation to give the war so merit and reason.

Hawaii, force ably removed the Hawaii Kingdom so that they could hold onto their South African style government....which means only the whites had real power...the new king had promised to change that so the Americans over threw them. Plus it gave them a base in the Pacific.

Philippines, we fought a war over there due to the fight over in Cuba. We decided that since we are already at war with Spain we might as well crush their Pacific Colonies thus crippling and allowing up to set up much like other imperial nations at the time.

Afgan war we supplied weapons to holy warriors simply because they would fight the Russians. Reason, a major oil producer.

Saudi Arabia we have propped up the Saudi government for years because they are a oil producing nation, not because we like them, but because we like them more than the last guys in power.

Iraq fought a war on the ill conceived notion that they had WMD, however it is looking like a war to fight over control over the oil lines.

There are other wars and conflicts that I could bring up but America has a tenancy to fight wars for one reason, but really for a whole different reason. I think that if we are going to become a imperial nation why not? England did it, Spain did it, France did it, Portugal, Japan, Germany, Russia so on and so forth.
A little soft on accuracy, JB. byEd.4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The Mexican-American War was caused by a difference of opinion between Mexico & the US over the territorial boundaries. Mexico, who lost the war for Texas independence refused to recognize the Rio Grande as the boundary between the two countries and claimed the Nueces River as its northern boundary. President Polk sent Zachary Taylor south to the Rio Grande to enforce the border, a skirmish broke out and Polk took that as an act of war. Now the Mexicans may have called it being antagonized but the Polk saw it as shedding American blood on American soil. The end result was Texas as we know it today, as well as the acquisition of what is now New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California as US territory.

If by the Cuban war, you mean the Spanish-American war, the steamer of which you speak was the warship USS Maine. Spanish authorities claimed it was an internal explosion; US military officials attributed it to a mine. Investigations, while not 100% certain, say it was most probably the latter.

The Civil War was, as you say, unconstitutional. However, as you also say, it was to protect the American way of life. Lincoln was committed to holding the Union together and, while I had ancestors who fought for the South and died for the cause, I think we are all better off because he did.

If the WMD notion was ill-conceived, it was a notion held to be accurate by every major international intelligence agency in the world.

Lastly, I don't believe the global politics of the US in any way meets the definition of Imperialism...unless we really do make Iraq our 51st state.
RE: A little soft on accuracy, JB. byjohnbrownraider4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
The facts are that the US government sent Zachary Taylor down to the Mexican American border to protect the disputed part claimed by the US. He had orders not to engage the Mexican Army unless engaged first. He was suppose to force the Mexicans to fire first so that the US could claim self defense and have reasonable cause to fight the war.

The Spanish American war was fought on the notion that we should free Cuba from Spain. We also were itching for the fight, and were only looking for an excuse.

The civil war, I never said that we weren't better off...I was saying that it was unconstitutional. I would agree that we are all better off because of it.

If you don't think American politics are imperialistic then how do you explain the fact that we only fight wars that benifit us?

Sure we set up governments that are free, but like old empires, the governments set up by the us are only slightly better than the puppet governments used by older empires. Look at Saudi Arabia, S. Korea, Columbia, Iraq, S. Vietnam (before the fall) Japan, Germany, Israel, Russian break away nations....what do all of these have in common. At one time in there recent history they were propped up by the US government.

If the US fought wars because it was the right thing to do we would have soldiers in Georgia, Sudan, N. Korea, Cuba, China...the truth of the matter is that we can't police the world so we must pick and choose...and unfortunately that means we pick the ones that mean the most to us...rather than humanity...so what if a million people die in N. Korea, Sudan, China, we need to help the Iraqis because they can sell us rather than China cheap oil.
RE: A little soft on accuracy, JB. byEd.4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
You say Taylor was to protect the Nueces strip. That he had orders not to engage the Mexican Army unless engaged first. Then you say "...he was supposed to force the Mexicans to fire first...". You need to decide which it was. He was not to engage - or - he was supposed to force them to fire first. I'm pretty certain the 63 men on the Thornton patrol were not out there trying to lure 2000 Mexican soldiers into shooting at them so we could start a war.

"...the notion that we should free Cuba from Spain..." is called the Monroe doctrine. Just like in Texas, they sank our ship, killed over 200 Americans and we, surprise, surprise, considered it an act of war. You have to be pretty cynical or a conspiracy nut to say the S-A war started because we "...were itching for the fight...".

As for American politics being imperialistic, that's just silly. "How do you explain the fact that we only fight wars that benifit us?" I don't, because it's not true. Yes, it benefits us in the world's eyes when we help those less fortunate, but these countries were not "propped up" by the US government. Viet Nam was a French possession. Japan & Germany were helped to rebuild AFTER we kicked their butts. Russia was our ally, but I doubt it could ever be said we propped them up. Our involvement in Iraq was motivated primarily by our desire to maintain stability in the Middle East. Oil was a concern, yes, for us as well as the rest of the world. I missed the Columbian war, so I can't comment on it, but you missed the Bosnian conflict--what benefit did we gain from being there?

It's a little simplistic to attribute our motivations to any one reason, e.g., "...we need to help the Iraqis because they can sell us rather than China cheap oil." There were many factors involved in all of the conflicts mentioned. Some more significant than others, but I don't think it adds up to the defintion of imperialism.
RE: A little soft on accuracy, JB. byjohnbrownraider4 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
Actually I said break away nations from Russia. like the old Eastern European block and other Russian satellite nations.

The Columbian war is also known as the war on drugs because FARC is a major producer of cocaine. The Columbian government doesn't the money or resources to wage a gorilla war against a group propped up by a multi billion dollar industry.

As for the Spanish American conflict how do you explain the fact that the warship was sitting in the middle of Havana harbor, they said it was to protect American interests from the riots...which were over by the time it got there? Also what reason did we have to take the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Carolina islands in the conflict?

As for the Bosnian war I believe that it was a U.N conflict and that is the reason that we were involved. Also Serbians were flying in the no fly zone so the U.N shot them down. I do not believe we would have gotten involved unless we were obligated to do so by the U.N

Sometimes the simplest reasons are the best reasons.
Depends on when you went to school bysouthward4 months ago