OT: Iowa Congressman says Radical Islam will dance in the streets
"Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, speaking to a local Iowa radio station, said that terrorists would dance in the streets if Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is elected president -- precisely because of not only Obama's position on withdrawing US troops from Iraq, but because Obama's middle name is "Hussein," his father's Muslim roots, and his appearance -- or "optics," as King put it."
His "appearance." In other words, he be a darky.
The audio:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003722255
Ugh. This fear mongering crap has gotten so damn tiresome. And it simply blows my mind that elected leaders can pass off racist rhetoric like this as legitimate discourse. Some other links:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/republican-cong.html
A good example of the disgusting morons that help promote this myth is found in the comments of this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1982410/posts (note the picture)
0 recs |
107 comments
Comments
Am I the only person
by jamcadbury on Mar 8, 2008 9:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
hmm
by ab03 on Mar 8, 2008 9:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The KKK
Islamic extremists are a very real threat right now, and I am fairly certain that they would be pleased if we had a Barack Obama presidency.
by dstar442005 on Mar 8, 2008 9:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's the stupidiest...
by slc ranger on Mar 8, 2008 10:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
containment
by dstar442005 on Mar 8, 2008 11:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He's from Iowa
by Chris Martin on Mar 8, 2008 9:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
He's possibly shooting for re-election
That's painting with the broadest of brushes, certainly not true of all individuals, but net/net was a fact 1965-1975. Maybe things have picked up there, maybe not.
by Ed Coffin on Mar 9, 2008 12:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was there a few months ago.
by brettgardner on Mar 9, 2008 12:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully McCain will denounce...
People like this have no place in the world. Don't vote for someone because of his middle name? Are you f@#king kidding me. Perhaps the left should start calling McCain...John "W" McCain.
by slc ranger on Mar 8, 2008 10:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
'W'
by Longhorn on Mar 8, 2008 10:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How so?
by slc ranger on Mar 8, 2008 10:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
funny you should mention that...
also, wasn't it pretty common "knowledge" that Bush wouldn't be re-elected 4 years ago? Wasn't it like a slam dunk that everybody hated him, his public opinion was crap, and nobody wanted him back, yet he won and remained in office another 4 years?
there's so much chatter out there about Bush sucking, and everybody hating him, but he's the incumbent - we weren't looking for radical change, like the left is, and so there wasn't as much pro-Bush propaganda like there was anti-Bush propaganda. the truth is, those that want change are going to be more vocal about it and garner support from celebs like Wyclef and Oprah to spread the "good news about CHANGE"
While I don't think our country is anywhere near being perfect, I see status quo as a lot better of an option than radical change in many cases, and I am not motivated to garner support because I am pretty satisfied with my own personal situation and the situations of all of the people that I know - whether they be liberal or conservative or middle of the road.
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 9, 2008 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
job market
by ab03 on Mar 9, 2008 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I respect your opinion Walter...
by slc ranger on Mar 9, 2008 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's all I can ask of you
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 9, 2008 5:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Status quo being
Yeah, why would you want to mess with that.
by DJCahill on Mar 10, 2008 6:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not right, not pc at all...
And, not sure why you keep linking radical blogs. Who cares what they say? That's stupid.
by Longhorn on Mar 8, 2008 10:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
which one of those was a radical blog?
by ab03 on Mar 8, 2008 10:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh
Bunch of crap. It's accentuated when you're a religious Jew and have to deal with the paranoia; however justified my friends are for being wary, I can't believe they're actually taking internet muckraking as credible evidence of someone's beliefs.
by BudLight on Mar 8, 2008 10:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
i don't understand the last line
by ab03 on Mar 8, 2008 10:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All of the rumors
by BudLight on Mar 8, 2008 10:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
mis-remembering?
by Jayslick on Mar 9, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so the fact that somebody puts
wow.
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 9, 2008 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if
besides you dont put your hand over your heart for anything but the pledge of allegiance. period. so yeah they would at the least be uneducated about the subject.
by Jayslick on Mar 9, 2008 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
or caught up in the moment, perhaps...
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 9, 2008 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this argument
So, it goes, muslim extremists would be happy that obama becomes president. And as a result of their happiness they will blow things up? They will target the U.S. even more now that one of their own is running the country?
the closest thing is that he said it makes the U.S. look weak. Well, as long as we actually aren't weak, I don't think it's a problem. And the first time Obama orders a bombing of a terrorist compound in Western Pakistan, I'm pretty sure they'll stop thinking that.
by ab03 on Mar 8, 2008 10:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Answering ab03
Something else: black and brown peoples around the world(including black and brown terrorists) will likely be heartened if Obama wins in November. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. Rep. King does deserve scorn for forgetting what America is about, i.e. if Obama were the best qualified candidate for President, then America doesn't give a damn what any terrorist or anybody might think - good or bad - about our decision to elect Obama. Neither terrorists, no anyone else, will scare us or prevent us from electing our best candidate.
Similarly, Rep. King's logic is inferior re both "Hussein", and Obama's father's Islamic faith. We don't give a damn if these things encourage terrorists. Terrorists do not get to determine how we run our nation.
Rep. King's comments revealed inferior perspective and inferior logic. They did not reveal racism.
To abo3:
The only terrorist happiness I care about is their happiness that we elected a President who is perceived as soft on terrorism. It's valid to consider how much extra at risk we would be if our President were perceived as "soft". It's valid to consider to what extent terrorists would be emboldened by their perception of Obama.
If Obama gets bluffed by Al Qaeda, Iran, and the media in Iraq; and if Obama then folds a winning hand in Iraq; then it doesn't matter how many compounds Obama bombs in Pakistan. Obama's weakness will be apparent to every Jihadi in the world.
McCain is correct to ridicule Obama for saying he would leave Iraq, then return to Iraq if it became necessary to fight Al Qaeda. Obama's statement is naive in a dozen ways. Not only are Al Qaeda and Iran already attempting chaos in Iraq, but it's politically difficult(in America, in Iraq, and internationally) to suddenly insert American troops into any nation. It's logistically difficult - including b/c you are pulling National Guardsmen away from their jobs and families. The Natl. Guard wants to win now - when they've already been pulled away from their jobs and families. They don't want to come home, resume their lives, then get jerked around by Obama and sent back to Iraq. If Obama had the slightest familiarity with the military he would understand this. If he re-sent them, the Natl. Guard would go - but he would be jerking them around. (and whatever others are reading this, save your whining about stop-loss. That's in everyone's contract - and everyone knows it when they sign up. Stop-loss is kinda tough, but it is being overemphasized b/c of it's political value to Democrats. Letting Natl. Guard resume their lives, then yanking them back into Iraq, is about 50 times more disruptive than stop-loss. Or 100 times.)
Back to the issue: Jihadis emboldened by the weakness Obama would display via folding a winning hand in Iraq. A lot of conservatives understand this statement inside the context of a larger threat than Al Qaeda: the widespread, worldwide presence of Islamic terrorism/Jihadism. The fight against Al Qaeda/Osama is really just a skirmish. The larger war is to wrest the soul of Islam from the grasping clutches of the Islamic fundamentalism. The fundamentalists do not control Islam, yet they want to control it. The madrassas are turning out Jihad warriors every year.
The fundamentalists/Jihadists must be stopped before they become exponentially stronger. Can they be stopped by the powerful allure of freedom, democracy, and pluralism? Can they be stopped by the powerful allure of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? We shall find the answer to a greater certainty if McCain is elected, as McCain will allow the entire Iraq democractic effort to play out fully. If freedom and democracy do not win more Muslims towards moderation, and away from Jihadism, then Islam runs a very much larger chance of having millions of it's citizens eventually slaughtered by American and Western nuclear weapons. If political correctness handcuffs America into being unable to conduct smaller skirmishes such as Iraq, then America's only weapon of self-defense will become gigantic nuclear booms. Inside this context, if one recognizes a serious Jihadi threat to the soul of Islam, then the Iraq War begins to look like a humanitarian effort on several levels: remove Saddam and his regional meddling; liberate the Shiites and Kurds; lessen the chances of nuclear warfare in the future.
So, if one understands Iraq in this context, then one doesn't want a (perceived) soft U.S. President to take office. Such an occurance can only encourage more Muslims towards Jihad, and away from moderation.
I apologize for the length of this. I don't guess I'm good enough or smart enough to make it much shorter.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 1:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
whatever, i'm not going to argue the merits of the iraq war with someone who refers to it as a humanitarian effort. all i know is that i wouldn't want to die policing another country that may or may not pose a threat to me in 50 years (assuming that war is the only way) and I don't expect anybody else to do it for me. i see the risk and i calculate that risking a thousand american lives a year isn't worth the small chance that american policing will yield a stable
government.
have you served in the military? are you speaking from experience when you say that people should be willing to go back? how old are you?
and, incidentally, i don't think obama plans on withdrawing troops and then sending them back.
by ab03 on Mar 9, 2008 1:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ab03
This is partially why I tried to explicate, in my comment above, what is the threat many conservatives perceive. Conservatives such as myself are not so worried about near-term terror attacks as we are about exponential growth of the fundamentalism/Jihad movement. It is only inside the larger threat (of growing worldwide fundamentalism/Jihad) that the perceived softness of Obama is seen as a very big problem for the U.S.
"have you served in the military?" I will not answer. This is the "chickenhawk" argument; and it is a discredited argument. Any answer I give would be a distraction from logic and reason.
I didn't say anyone "should be willing to go back". We miscommunicated somewhere on this.
"how old are you?" Again, I think any answer I give would be a type of distraction. I'm older than dstar. That's enough for now.
"i don't think obama plans on withdrawing troops and then sending them back". The bolded part is the problem. IMO, Obama is not Mr. New Politics of Hope. He's the same old politics which evades specifics and, when he must be specific, surrounds both sides of an issue whenever possible. I've heard Obama criticize Hillary for not setting a hard date/schedule for withdrawal from Iraq ... then, two sentences later, I've heard Obama say that, as President, he will "of course" retain flexibility to act according to changing conditions on the ground. ??!! President Bush is retaining flexibility according to changing conditions on the ground.
On Friday, a top Obama foreign policy advisor(Samantha Power) resigned from the Obama campaign and said this:
Power told a British television audience that Obama's plan for withdrawing from Iraq (like, apparently, his plan to renegotiate NAFTA) isn't really to be taken seriously. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator," Power explained. In perhaps the most sensible comment I've heard her make, Power added: "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009." She went on to describe Obama's stated plan as "a best case scenario."So, the problem w/Obama: we think this, we think that. We don't know. He is too clever by half. I'm beginning to suspect it will catch up to him.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 3:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Please
by brettgardner on Mar 9, 2008 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm voting for the Republican
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your view of Obama...
Guess what, you Bush republicans have been wrong on almost everything the last 8 years. You have no leg to stand on. Why should anyone believe anything you say now. You say shit like Iraq would fall apart if we left now. How do you know? Did you have a good plan going in? Have things turned out the way you expected them to? Why should anything you say now have any validity. Just like with the economy it will take a democrat to come in and fix this mess, and they will. Whether you like it or not.
by slc ranger on Mar 9, 2008 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
slc
I love hope. I just think Obama is a regular polotico who is playing regular political games in his efforts to win votes. He is not some special paradigm shift.
I've never said this country will never change. Change is inevitable and ongoing. My worry is we are changing for the worse.
Re: Iraq
As I said to ab03, we cannot debate Iraq, b/c we do not agree on the threat our nation faces. slc, if you and I agreed about what constitutes the threat, then I might very well agree with your assessment of conditions in Iraq.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
have you even talked to soldiers that have
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 9, 2008 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have spoke to some...
Obviously with disagree on the reason for being over there. As I have always said, I'm as far to the left as they come, so you have to take my point of view with a grain of salt. Like with Huck I understand your point of view, I just disagree with it. And as you have said that is fine. It would be a very boring world if everyone agreed on everything.
by slc ranger on Mar 9, 2008 7:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
by the way, I am not a Republican.
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 9, 2008 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it matters...
by slc ranger on Mar 9, 2008 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do we really think that declaring war on them
I'm not saying I know what the best way would be. But my speculation includes some kind of humanitarian and propaganda bombardment. The war is exactly the opposite of the propaganda we would need.
by a bebop a rebop on Mar 9, 2008 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hi bebop!
"Humanitarian bombardment"
In Iraq and Afghan, we are doing humanitarian bombardment as much as we are logistically able to do so.
"Propaganda bombardment"
I'm with you. Our lack of public relations/propaganda bombardment is a pet peeve of mine. Since we want to win the people away from Sharia and Jihadism, public relations/propaganda is just as important as bullets(though including the "bullets" part may not fairly reflect exactly what you said).
The good news is the U.S. military is learning strategic public relations lessons as we go, and is adapting.
is war "the best way to win over the heart and soul of Islam to peaceful coexistence and democracy?"
This is THE KEY QUESTION, isn't it?
In Iraq, our goal is to protect the moderates, allow them to love freedom and democracy, then count on them to win the undecided fence sitters over to moderation.
Without U.S./Iraqi/Coalition military protection for the people, Al Qaeda and Iran would never allow moderate Iraqis to be won over to freedom and democracy.
The good news is the disciplined(though imperfect) and humanitarian behavior of our troops is it's own kind of good public relations for our cause. Our troop discipline, and our codes of conduct, are a large part of the "awakening" we currently see amongst Iraqi tribes. For the most part, the Iraqi people now see we are not at war with them.
Al Qaeda, especially when it was living amongst the Sunni tribes, was neither disciplined nor humanitarian. Their behavior led to their rejection by the tribes.
Iraq is a grand democratic experiment. If moderate Muslims are incompatible with democracy, the spector of horrific nuclear booms draws closer.
If political correctness handcuffs the U.S.; if pc prevents us from conducting military skirmishes such as Iraq; then we are stripping ourselves of interim measures of self-protective recourse. We will, then, take it and take it and take it from an enemy, until such time as we spasmodically strike back with the world's most horrible weapons.
I do not want that day to happen. I am hopeful that Muslims will embrace democracy. I am hopeful we will not allow pc to strip us of our ability to protect ourselves in some way short of nuclear pushback.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just quit already.
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Air
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Air
I perceive the threat as fundamentalists/Jihadis who are attempting to gain control of Islam. They wish to institute widespread Sharia law. They argued, even in the 1990s, that America was attacking Islam(via many methods of attack - including cultural and economic). Therefore, they argued, as a matter of self-defense, they argue that every Muslim should declare Jihad on America.
The number of fundamentalists might be somewhere around 91 million. Last month, French news agency AFP reported that a new Gallup poll, which took six years to complete, showed approx. "93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews."
Seven percent of 1.3 billion leaves us with 91 million radical Islamists. They are the threat. They must be severely discredited inside their own religion - just as the KKK is severely discredited inside America.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Radicals
Jihadis attempting to gain control of Islam- If you're worried about that, don't. It will never happen.
The culture- Wow. That is so off base I'm dumbfounded. "Mothers calming their sons via fondling the boys' genitals." Where the hell did you get that? You are severely misinformed my friend. I'm not Muslim but have lived in that region for awhile. Lebanon to be exact and none of the crap you said about the culture is true.
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
FGM
by ab03 on Mar 9, 2008 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ab03
In addition to Africa, there's a lot of FGM in Indonesia.
I disagree that age matters. This is conversation about ideas, facts, et al. Age, beauty, do not matter. Even claims of experience and expertise do not matter. What matters is the legitimacy of the ideas, facts, et al which are in the conversation.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
x
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
air
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah,
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
air
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I
"The culture currently celebrates honor killing your daughter, as well as Female Genital Mutilation, as well mothers calming their sons via fondling the boys' genitals. It's little wonder the culture encourages men to believe they have no control over their sexual urges. It's little wonder the culture encourages belief in victimization over belief in responsibility."
That is my biggest problem. You have no proof and can't back any of the statements you made.
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
air
If you are objecting that x,y,z do not exist, I give you links(and there are plenty more links where these came from).
Honor Killing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Killing
FGM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Genital_Mutilation
Mothers calming boys via fondling genitals:
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2008/02/the-arab-mind-2.html
Men having no control over their sexual urges: What do you think the abaiya and the burka are about? What do you think the stoning of rape victims is about?
Belief in victimization over responsibility:
There are a lot of links I could go to here. The main problem is that Arab and Persian societies are honor/shame cultures to the core. People inside Honor and shame cultures do not like to admit mistakes, as they believe that admitting mistakes dishonors them(in this, they are like some commenters here at LSB!). I always liked Dr. Pat Santy's outstanding take on this subject:
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/shame-arab-psyche-and-islam.html
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Finally it makes sense.
Like I originally stated, just quit. If what you've stated is true then only a minuscule amount of people do that. To imply that the majority of the culture is doing it, is false.
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
air
I will say two things:
One: You would learn more from reading Shrinkwrapped, and from reading Dr. Santy, than from reflexively discrediting them.
Two: There are many links available on this subject matter. Many. But, I shall not provide more links whilst hoping against hope that you will approve of a particular source.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
x
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
air
Thanks for sharing your opinions in these comments.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
air - one more thing
The culture currently celebrates standing still inside the values Mohammad learned from Allah. The culture does not celebrate moving forward into modernity.
The culture currently celebrates honor killing your daughter, as well as Female Genital Mutilation, as well mothers calming their sons via fondling the boys' genitals. It's little wonder the culture encourages men to believe they have no control over their sexual urges. It's little wonder the culture encourages belief in victimization over belief in responsibility.
The culture itself must be reformed. I've barely touched the surface of what is flawed about the culture. In an age of horrific weaponry, we cannot afford to have the products of such backward culture 1) blaming and hating us, and 2) funded by oil money in their efforts at retribution against us.
Lastly: our own politically correct refusal to criticize other cultures endangers us, as it blinds us to the threat from this tribal/religious/regional culture in particular. We've become afraid to look with clear eyes and say: stoning homosexuals is wrong; stoning female victims of rape is wrong; burning your daughter is wrong. We are afraid b/c, gosh, to clearly say a culture is misguided is to commit the sin of being intolerant. J'accuse! We should open our eyes to our own embrace of pc foolishness. We can respect a culture, we can respect the people of a culture, and we can still look with clear eyes and say parts of the culture need reform. If we shut ourselves down from thinking; if we, for fear of being "intolerant", purposefully shut down our own brains from engaging and considering various verbotten subject matter; then we are paving a path to our own destruction as a successful society.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The culture itself must be reformed."
by Chase Irwin on Mar 9, 2008 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
chase
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You just can't force...
by slc ranger on Mar 9, 2008 7:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
slc
I think it is smart of us to try democracy as a solution to the growing fundamentalist threat in the region.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 7:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I took a class that helped me out with this
Radical Islam is not really based upon Islam - it's based on power. Islam is one of the many tools these radicals use to promote their propaganda, and when they are the ones feeding and educating the poor, they are able to plant the ideas of Jihad and radical war through tactics such as suicide bombings, they are able to blame the West for being so rich and powerful, and they are able to dangle the carrot in front of the faces of these people and recruit soldiers for their causes.
We simply cannot affect the situation through propaganda when we are not feeding, educating, and supporting the people - and we cannot feed, educate and support the people without a direct influence in the region. The war in Afghanistan was a direct response to 9-11, because our intelligence led us there in a chase against OBL and those that conspired with him. We all understand that. The war in Iraq was tied to 9-11, whether correct or incorrect, and so we forged on with that idea, and the idea that Saddam was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Did we find any? Yes. We found biological and chemical weapons, just not a nuclear arsenal. The whole "we didn't find nuclear weapons so we didn't find weapons of mass destruction" argument is a pretty ignorant argument if you think about it. We did. And we found further proof that Saddam had the plans for nuclear weapons, and was working on acquiring the materials and scientists necessary to build them. But another reason we went into Iraq is because we have a history with the nation - not only the Gulf War, but before that, in supporting Saddam, we were responsible for his growth and influence. If we had been given the green light by the U.N. to take Saddam out of power in 1991, we wouldn't have had the situation we have today - but the power void would have been filled in a negative way, if we hadn't offered assistance with reconstruction and education.
And what we have now in Iraq is a power vacuum. We're trying to fill that vacuum with a democratic form of government, by feeding and educating the youth and giving them every last chance to forge a nation based on what they think is best for them, instead of constant deference to dictators and fundamentalists.
I guarantee you two things: 1) if we stay the course, and continue to educate the Iraqi people and leave them with a way to defend themselves, things will be a lot better in that region than they have been historically. 2) if we leave too early, we will open up that power vacuum, and it will be filled by all sorts with the wrong intentions, giving terrorism a strong foothold in the middle of one of the more important regions in the world.
In the end, there are many reasons we should be there: and oil is CERTAINLY a factor, as is a presence in one of the most unstable regions in the world. But I believe, and I think you would have to be foolish not to believe, that the Iraqis will be better off after we leave if we stay the course than they were when we arrived.
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 9, 2008 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Walter Sobchak
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thank you sir
I'm pretty bullheaded about this whole situation, and I understand that - I just wish people would educate themselves about the whole situation before writing the war off or backing a presidential candidate solely because they argue they were against the war from Day 1.
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 9, 2008 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Fold a winning hand in Iraq"
The same guys that are saying that are the ones that claimed 5 years ago (5 years!) that the war would pay for itself, and that we'd be greeted as liberators.
So I don't think I'm taking those boobs' word on anything.
As far as stop loss goes, the provision was not at all widely known amongst service members. I had been in for 6 or 7 years and had no idea they could do that when I saw it in the news. Your asinine remarks about 50 to 100 times worse show it is you who "doesn't have the slightest familiarity with the military." I'll bet all the money in my wallet you never spent 1 day in the service, but you pat yourself on the back every day for having a dandy little "support the troops" ribbon on the back of your beemer.
And Al Qaeda couldn't ask for a better recruiter than someone who plans on keeping a huge western presence on Muslim soil for 50 to 100 years. I like McCain, but he's way off on this one.
And screw the Iraqis. They want us out. They think it is perfectly acceptable to kill Americans.
And I also find it to be a curious contradiction that the Hucks and the Rushes and Hannitys of the world, who keep carping about "cutting and running," and how that would look to the rest of the globe, are the same peeps that when we were rushing into Iraq said "fuck multilateralism, we don't need anybody's approval, who cares what Europe or the UN or anyone else thinks, harumph harumph."
Occupations rarely succeed, and are never worth the cost. It's been 5 years now. Enough is enough.
by Brian Thomas on Mar 9, 2008 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and before you compose your next
"Fold a winning hand." Heh. Good one...
by Brian Thomas on Mar 9, 2008 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brian Thomas
"I'll just tell you in advance that I'm not interested"
EXACTLY.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So why hijack his thread?
by Chase Irwin on Mar 9, 2008 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chase
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
to the commenters
One can almost never actually know if a person is racist. Such a thing is conjecture, and almost always will be conjecture(except in very rare instances of blatant public exposure), and therefore such an allegation is weak tea. We cannot see into someone's heart.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 1:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hucks the same guy
the guy wouldnt know racism if it bit him in the ass.
by Jayslick on Mar 9, 2008 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
jayslick
You read into my two highlighted comments(below) what you wanted to read into them. You so strongly assumed you knew my views that my actual words didn't seep into your consciousness.
Here, word for word, is everything I said:
my first comment
sigh.What can I call it, other than States Rights, so I will not be implying prejudice?
PC is so incredibly tiresome - and such a ridiculous joke.
my second comment
Thats all fine, and enlightening, and is truly interesting discussion, imo. I'm geeky enough to like that stuff. I concur with much of your comment.. Consistent with your cited Wikipedia articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_rights#Since_1865But, you know what I am talking about. Here is the very first sentence of your own Wikipedia link:
States' rights refers to the idea, in U.S. politics and constitutional law, that U.S. states possess certain rights and political powers in relation to the federal government.Now, what do you want me to call that, so I will not offend PC sensibilities or accidentally speak in negative code?
I will endeavor to say "States powers" in the future.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats great
how can you so adamantly support a party that favors that?
by Jayslick on Mar 9, 2008 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jayslick
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so
what is it?
by Jayslick on Mar 9, 2008 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jayslick
But, before I do, I'm curious whether you concede my point(?), i.e. I expressed no opinion which either agreed or disagreed with you vis a vis racism, states rights, et al.
Let me try it this way: for all you know, I agree with you 100%. I expressed no opinion contradicting anything you said. I merely asked how I could refer to the subject (right/powers of states) without offending pc sensibilities. Do you now concede this point?
You should concede the point. I will congratulate you if you genuinely do so. It would show wisdom and graciousness on your part.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huck
by The Ahmad on Mar 9, 2008 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahmad
Do you dispute that fundamentalists wish to gain influence within Islam?
Do you dispute the fundamentalists wish to implement Sharia?
Do you dispute the fundamentalists encourage every Muslim to declare Jihad on America?
Do you dispute the widespread existence of honor killings? The United Nations Population Fund says possibly 5000 women per year are killed in honor killings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Population_Fund
Do you dispute the wide practice of FGM?
Do you dispute that homosexuals are stoned?
Do you dispute that rape victims are stoned?
I respect Muslims. Can you point to a specific instance of racist attitude on my part? I'll answer that: you cannot.
The combined religion/tribalism/region is in the grip of backwards attitudes. The religion/tribal culture is in desperate need of reformation. If you are unwilling to admit that you are part of the problem.
Do you think I don't know any Muslims? Do you think I have never conversed with them?
If Islam/tribal culture does not reform, no one will have peace - least of all the Muslims of the region. Please consider the long term implications. Muslims will reap violence and death.
Last, since "Free Palestine" is in every one of your posts: Palestine has every opportunity to free itself. Palestinians hate Jews more than they love freedom. Palestinians want Jews pushed en masse into the ocean more than they want freedom. It is Jews who truly want to free Palestine. At every turn, Palestinian leadership refuses to allow Palestine to be free.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
5000 women per year
Interesting.
I think there are 1400 instances of Jewish American hate crimes every year. So, our culture must represent hate of the jews.
There are about 16000 deaths from alcohol related crashes. So, our culture must be alcohol centric.
etc.
by ab03 on Mar 9, 2008 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those...
by slc ranger on Mar 9, 2008 9:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you know
"do you deny that fundamentalist christians wish to gain influence in the U.S."
"do you deny fundamentalist christians wish to institute christianity in U.S. government"
"do you deny that homosexual hate crimes occur in the U.S."
by ab03 on Mar 9, 2008 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ab03
The Christians you speak of wish to gain influence through persuasion, as opposed to violence.
If Christianity is instituted in the U.S. government(as if it would ever happen), it will be instituted through democratic means, as opposed to violent means.
But, isn't your argument silly? Christianity is designed to explicitly stay out of government("Render unto Caesar..."), and is nowhere near a take-over of U.S. government - despite the near hysteria of 7 years of leftists predicting a fundamentalist take-over by Bush and his minions(minions like Walter Sobchak!). On the other hand, Islamists are constantly working to take over a nation and institute Sharia. It is their explicit stated short-term goal, and they have come near to accomplishing it(and actually did accomplish it w/the Taliban in Afghan). On the surface, your argument looks interesting. But, delved into, the comparisons do not hold up.
Homosexual: when we begin stoning homosexuals, as the government of Iran does, for instance, you can get back to me.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate to sound like a jackass, ab03
"gaining influence" is one thing, taking captive of foreign reporters and beheading them on film is another.
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 9, 2008 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ab03
Further, our culture is doing everything we can to eliminate and to denounce such hate crimes. Arab cultures are not.
Consider this story from 2003:
Jordan's Parliament has rejected the senate's recommendation to uphold a law providing stiffer penalties for men who kill women in so-called "honour killings".http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=39747
Consider the story of a Palestinian girl who was doused with gasoline and burned, and the hospital staff refused to treat her, as they well understood she needed to die:
"I'm going to take care of you," were the brother-in law's soothing words before he doused Souad with gasoline and set her aflame.Ninety percent of Souad's body was burned and she was left to die in a local hospital - where the staff refused to treat her, for they understood all too well that it was important for this charmuta to die. Souad's mother showed up to the hospital as the protagonist in the final act, hoping to finish off what her son-in-law had started. In her unrivalled motherly love, she brought a glass of poison to her daughter's lips, commanding her to drink. But the entrance of a doctor into the hospital room interfered with the intended script and Souad's life was spared.
By the miraculous and courageous intervention of a Swiss-based humanitarian worker ("Jacqueline"), Souad survived and was flown to Europe -- where she lives today under a secret identity. If her family discovered that she were alive and discerned her new whereabouts, they would still come to murder to her.
I do not equate American society's denunciation of hate crime with some Arab society's acceptance and tolerance of murder. I also do not equate hate crime - which might amount to graffiti - with the murder of your daughter.
Regarding the alcohol related accidents:
- those are accidents, not deliberate murders
- our society is reforming itself, through increased enforcement, through lowering of legal blood alcohol levels.
- to the extent we are failing to stop this problem, my criticism is equal to anyone's. We should reform.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Burned Alive
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={B60E8F70-561B-4BC9-9CAB-506CD356BD6D}
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap.
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Air
You are rejecting fact which does not align with your worldview. I could find more news reports of the Jordinian Parliament's action. I could find(I have seen it in the past) at least one other account of Souad's story. You are trying to discredit me because you cannot discredit my reasoning. You may not realize it, but what you are doing is intellectually lazy and duplicitous. You may not realize it, but you are dulling your own ability to maked reasoned arguments.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
here's a Google link
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RNWN_enUS265US265&q=Soua d%2c+Burned+Alive%3a+A+Victim+of+the+Law+of+Men
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What
BTW, age does matter. I'm a Texas Tech alum class of '96.
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
air
I don't necessarily say every single thing represents a majority of the culture. For instance, I linked to the Gallup poll which claims 93% of Muslims are moderates. What I say is the culture needs a reformation. The culture needs to embrace modernity.
I honestly do not understand what age has to do with anything. BTW, eventually my age will probably become known, and any reaction will be a big "so what? Why in the world were we interested in his age?" In the meantime: why does age matter? I don't get it at all.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
x
Here's a wiki on front page, could be completely false, reminds me of the NOI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrontPage_Magazine
by AirJordan on Mar 9, 2008 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
or he has educated himself
by Walter Sobchak on Mar 9, 2008 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
i think it matters
by ab03 on Mar 9, 2008 9:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ab03
Age: why? Do you wish to explain your viewpoint? Maybe you will win me over. My age is not some deep, dark secret - it is irrelevant and unmeaningful. I just hate to distract from the subject matter with extraneous crud.
by Huck on Mar 9, 2008 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who thinks
by miles on Mar 8, 2008 10:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately I do...
However Obama took Wyo today and will take Mississippi, so neither will really gain any delegates after PA. Obama will still be up 100 or so imo.
by slc ranger on Mar 8, 2008 10:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i think that while
I think extremists hate Americans whether they are Muslim or not.
by willamos2 on Mar 8, 2008 10:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The funny
by miles on Mar 8, 2008 10:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
HUCK
by The Ahmad on Mar 9, 2008 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 















