The video had 17,922,654 views on FB when I viewed it. 895,282 shares on FB.
That's a lot of anyones.
Obama's Iran Nuke Deal
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
The video had 17,922,654 views on FB when I viewed it. 895,282 shares on FB.
That's a lot of anyones.
LibertyBeacon
Unto dust we shall return
There are a lot of stupid people on "FB". Do I need to prove this to you?
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Lots of them in this forum too---------------you included.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Whatsa bint?
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
The answer to that one should be good and more than likely self- descriptive.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Larry?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Larry (II)?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Sorry. Life interrupted.
In any event,
Ongoing recognition of Israel's right to exist as a nation is step one and, in and of itself, WILL end the vast majority of the terrorism. This is an enormous step in and of itself for them, akin to them renouncing their faith and this is the crux, the core problem and why I insist we discuss Islam in terms of 'fundamentalism' as opposed to 'terrorists' and 'extremists' et al. Christians and Jews have been modernizing and Westernizing for 100's of years on religion and leads us to where we don't take it so literally. However, there is still plenty of fundamentalist appeal so, that is our connection to understanding how simple, and difficult, the problem is in Islam. MOST Muslims can't read the Koran for understanding, same with the Hadith. Those that can rely on interpretation of mullahs and so forth in ways we LONG ago left behind in terms of our widespread dependency on a preacher or a pope to tell us what to think and do.
Point being you want a lot that they simply can not give at this point due to how interconnected faith, interpretation, Westernization, resistance to it, modernization, selective acceptance of it, and so forth go into this. This is was Reagan's genius; focus on being America and American's, lead my example. It is a LOT better to persuade than to demand. The neo con doctrine, though they claim to be Reaganite, they simply don't believe in America. They want to impose.
We defeated the greatest enemy freedom has without a major war. We are now defeating freedom with this return to the Korea/Vietnam world view whereby our direct involvement is seen as wise. Have we not proven otherwise yet?
America first. That's the path.
Being always the smartest person in every room is a remarkable accomplishment. How did you get there?
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
It's a room filled with Obama voters.
Being the smartest one in there isn't hard at all.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Sorry. Life interrupted.
In any event,
Ongoing recognition of Israel's right to exist as a nation is step one and, in and of itself, WILL end the vast majority of the terrorism. This is an enormous step in and of itself for them, akin to them renouncing their faith and this is the crux, the core problem and why I insist we discuss Islam in terms of 'fundamentalism' as opposed to 'terrorists' and 'extremists' et al. Christians and Jews have been modernizing and Westernizing for 100's of years on religion and leads us to where we don't take it so literally. However, there is still plenty of fundamentalist appeal so, that is our connection to understanding how simple, and difficult, the problem is in Islam. MOST Muslims can't read the Koran for understanding, same with the Hadith. Those that can rely on interpretation of mullahs and so forth in ways we LONG ago left behind in terms of our widespread dependency on a preacher or a pope to tell us what to think and do.
Point being you want a lot that they simply can not give at this point due to how interconnected faith, interpretation, Westernization, resistance to it, modernization, selective acceptance of it, and so forth go into this. This is was Reagan's genius; focus on being America and American's, lead my example. It is a LOT better to persuade than to demand. The neo con doctrine, though they claim to be Reaganite, they simply don't believe in America. They want to impose.
We defeated the greatest enemy freedom has without a major war. We are now defeating freedom with this return to the Korea/Vietnam world view whereby our direct involvement is seen as wise. Have we not proven otherwise yet?
America first. That's the path.
Again, so that means just allowing, through tacitly ignoring, Iran to gain nuclear weapons and threaten the very existence of Israel? Or, would you have us lead by example by bringing to Iran (through the release of international banking and commerce sanctions) our culture (Coke, McDonalds, and R-rated movies) and winning them over that way - force an internal overthrow the way Obama is planning on in Cuba (which, personally, I think will work there)?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
So now you want to release sanctions? What happened to all that outrage over giving them the money to buy the bomb?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Did you notice the question mark at the end? It looks like "?", and implies I am asking if that is what Larry is saying. It means what I posted is not a declarative statement, but rather an interrogative one.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
There it is again; allow. That is NOT the business of America.
Think about this; what would the world look like today had we not entered WWI? WWII?
In the case of WWI, I am thoroughly convinced that there would not have been a WWII. That England and France and Germany would have been forced to all come to terms based on exhaustion and the reality that the ONLY thing they were accomplishing is killing and dying for ZERO gain. The world paid dearly for our not only intervening to make the 'allies' the 'winners' but, worse, we THEN retreated and allowed them to make the peace.
You seem convinced Iran will pull the trigger. I don't think they will. What I do think is that it will force the region to come to grips with one another, Saudi, Israel, Iran, and make a collective peace.
Our paternalism is an amazing thing and it is an illness, a presumptuousness and arrogance I think the founders would scream at us, as they do now through old papers, that that is EXACTLY what they were trying to avoid.
Where has American intervention made the world a better place where it, clearly, would not have been otherwise?
I am convinced our meddling in WWI created the horror of II. Our choosing the winners in II made the world safe for Stalin and Mao.
Korea? Vietnam? Middle East?
There is ZERO historical context to say our intervention, an abjectly UN American activity, made the world a better place. None.
This_person
Well-Known Member
While not wanting to devolve into a debate on history, I can understand how the peace of WWI created WWII. That said, I think there's more to it than, "the US isn't involved, so we're just going to have to find a peaceful solution." That seems a little simplistic. Germany won WWII until we got involved. Are you prepared, as a citizen of the world (because, like it or not, we are) to have our trade and European infrastructure be what Germany would have imposed? Are you ready for a large portion of the world being under USSR and/or Chinese control? Just because we don't intervene won't mean no one else will.
So, yes, "allow" is the right word. As much as you hate Bush and "cowboy diplomacy", the "you're either with us or against us" was so popular with the American people because it cuts through the bull#### and it is fairly accurate on how the rest of the world acts. Let's take your "let the middle east figure themselves out" philosophy to a logical end...Iran gets nukes, Saudi gets nukes, Egypt gets nukes, and soon we have a largely radioactive region of cockroaches killing each other like their human predecessors did.
"Fine," you say. "Let them kill one another." What does that do to world stability? What does that do for the morality of someone who could have saved lives in the long run? Forget that, what does that do to the world on which we live? Chernobyl was a very small problem that we detected time-zones away. Potentially contaminated debris is washing up on our west coast from Japan's Fukishima. We have a measurably higher background in the US due to testing. We owe it to ourselves if no one else.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
But that's the choice we made; who would dominate Europe; Germany or the USSR. We chose communism over fascism. I would argue that the world would have been considerably better off had Germany beaten the Sov's. They beat them, Japan dominates China, there is no Mao.
Just because someone else will intervene doesn't mean we should.
I have far less problem with defeating Japan as they did ask for it. That said, was it really worth 100,000 dead Marines? 3-400,000 crippled?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, noooooooooooooooooooooooo.
I said this then, I say it now and I will say it forever; Wars of liberation can never be off the table for the United States. Dubbya's mistake was NOT in going. Dubbya's unforgivable sin and enormous mistake was in LOSING. Cowboy, deliberate statesman, flip a coin. Whatever. Just WIN, baby. WIN.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
The one thing we did do right with WWII was we materially benefited for our 400,000 dead.
What we've done in the ME is immorality defined; killing that, at the end of the day, has yielded NOTHING but more killing. Bush had over four years to get on with it with the most powerful forces the world has ever seen and he failed. Maybe he didn't want to win. Maybe he was simply incompetent. Maybe he is so smart that his brilliance has yet to reveal itself.
In any event, had we won, had we dictated peace as some sort of Marshall plan, he we built AFTER the fighting, then, OK. Maybe the world has 50 years of prosperity and relative peace. As is, we poured gasoline all over the mess and burned the crap out of ourselves in the process.