Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh; it's got to be the "culture" of that part of the world why they're such a bunch of screw ups. I say that because word is the Christian Arabs; same "race", have the rep of blowing way past the Muslims ones where education, courage and so on are concerned.
Not really, they're fairly close culturally in a lot of ways, at least in the Levant region. As well Palestinian Christian Arabs led some of the earliest terrorism campaigns against Israel(including pioneering airplane hijacking)--because they were close enough to consider themselves Arab first when it came to Israel.
And there is no real Arab race--it's just a broad cultural sphere of people who speak Arabic. There's a lot of difference between people on the coast of Lebanon or Syria with people from Yemen with Algerians and so on... There were Arab Jews throughout the Middle East as well prior to Israel's founding.
Much of the Arab world is such a political basket-case because for years there was no Arab self-rule--after the destruction of the Mongols left you had the Mamelukes then the Ottoman Turks then the British and French. There was a lack of strong institutions that was only filled by dictators--now we're seeing the breakdown of those strong-arm governments and you have a bloody factional mess. It's similar to what's happened in plenty of places when political systems breakdown and there's not much to fill the void but tribal/religious ties.
But in America, people want to make every regional conflict in the Middle East about every Muslim in the entire world. Where as Muslim nations like Malyasia or Indonesia don't have anything to do with Syria--nor do India's Muslims, neither do Morocco or Bosnia.
Hopefully the rebels will use to fight Assad, any support they get from the outside world should be spent on bringing the barbaric, vicious regime in Syria down. As for eliminating ISIS, that America and our allies' job.
You mean like we took the "barbaric, vicious regime" in Iraq? Just how did that work out again?
Our government is moronic. Picking sides in a ME civil war has never ended well for this country. After the last 11 years I'd have hoped we would have learned something.
Congress did in fact approve the NATO treaty. That treaty binds the US to act when member nations rerquest. Of course, there may be legal grounds for your position. But if that's the case, why hasn't the GOP congress brought charges? After all they've had plenty of time.
No.
We are not bound to act when a NATO country "requests" it. We are bound to act when another NATO country is attacked. To sum up, you are 100% wrong to be suggesting that UN resolutions not ratified by congress allows a president to attack or a 'request' from a NATO country to attack non-threat. Candidate Obama and the actual wording of the laws agrees with me.
I don't know if you are really this ignorant or just using deception to shield Obama from his hypocrisy. You also completely ignored me pointing out your hypocrisy on Bush and Obama with congressional approval. Do you think Obama would be less of a failure if you and the other Obamabots were to hold him accountable instead of lying, spinning, etc to make excuses for him?
As my link shows, Candidate Obama agrees 100% with my position. President Obama disagrees with my position.
To make it clear, I don't think Obama needs congress for limited operations against ISIS, as they are a direct threat, unlike Libya. President Obama did need congress for Libya, per the actual law just like Candidate Obama points out, but President Obama avoided it...
9/11 happened because we are killing innocent people in the Middle East, we are occupying and desecrating their Holy Lands and our undying support of Israel. Your post is irresponsible.
Again, 9/11 happened because it is the goal of Islam to destroy Western civilization, and America is believed by Muslims to be "The Great Satan." America represents the West. Muslims hate the West.
Was the Islamic invasion of the Christian nations of the West, including Europe, during the middle ages, which resulted in the Crusades, because the West was desecrating Muslim Holy Lands?
Hordes of Muslims invaded the West (the countries of the Mediterranean and Europe), destroying churches, and slaughtering millions. Like today, they were carrying out Jihad against the West. The Crusades drove them back, and reclaimed the conquered Christian lands.
Today, the goal is the same, and Muslims are destroying historic Christian holy sites. Their goal is a Worldwide Caliphate.
Muslims hate all of Christianity and the West. That is why they wish to attack us, and that was the reason for 9/11. It was the first major blow against the West since the Muslim invasions during the Middle Ages, and please note that they are once again mounting attacks around the world. Does that not tell you something? It should.
I never called Bush a war criminal, I called him a moron. The same can be said of many politicians, but Bush was pretty damned bad.
He was also "damned pretty bad".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
I thought that was asinine when he had done nothing to deserve getting the Nobel prize for peace to begin with.
It was said the award was given for what he was going to do.
Good thing he got paid upfront.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
