Who would you like to see as the next US President?

[Southtown]

Ridiculously obvious? I fail to distinguish which was which?

Really? Hint:

USATODAY.com - Hearing to begin for five U.S. soldiers in Mahmoudiya rape-slaying

[InfiniteNow]

Southtown's position misses what, to me anyway, is the obvious piece.

 

This is not about what is and what is not sanctioned by leadership.

 

This is about why the anger and resentment and fear persist and continue to cause anguish and problems among a global population who is not generally inclined to be invested in either.

[REASON]

Really? Hint:

USATODAY.com - Hearing to begin for five U.S. soldiers in Mahmoudiya rape-slaying

 

Show me an honest conviction and I'll acknowledge a difference.

 

Haditha Killings - Wikipedia

Blackwater Baghdad Killings - Wikipedia

Abu Ghraib Scandal - Wikipedia

 

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

 

Purported retaliation

On May 11, 2004, a video was released of the beheading of Nick Berg, a U.S. civilian who went to Iraq seeking work repairing antennas. The video was the work of an Islamic militant group headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a noted Al-Qaeda member in Iraq. The unidentifiable figures claim to have committed the murder in retaliation for the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

 

And don't give me BS sacrificial lamb convictions like Lynndie England.

 

 

Ultimately, the question is: Do the Iraqis see a difference as well? If their child or husband is taken out by some US military maneuver that we consider justifiable, do you think they see it as justifiable as well?

 

If the United States were occupied by some powerful foreign nation that was basing their incursion on the notion that we represented an emanant threat to their security, announcing that they were here to protect us from our evil president, and who infiltrated your home in the middle of the night to take you or your teenage son into custody at gun point to be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques because there had been a number of recent incidents in the area with resistance fighters, or what they call terrorists, would you be glad that they were there to keep you and your family safe?

 

If we are only able to see this from our own point of view as the aggressors, we will never understand why we are unable to achieve our ultimate goal of stamping out terrorism, and promoting a peaceful world.

 

On the other hand, maybe peace isn't what we really want. :camera:

 

We are operating under a failed policy. It's plain to see, and it's time for a different approach.

 

It's time for change.

[modest]

The difference is ridiculously obvious. One group's actions were ordered/allowed by their superiors, the other group's actions were not.

 

That's it! You've hit the nail on the head. This is the difference that makes people feel comfortable.

 

It isn't Bush's fault kids are dying in Iraq. He isn't "ordering" the deaths. He doesn't order civilians to be shot any more than he orders torture. It isn't his fault any more than it's MY fault or YOUR fault or CHRISTIANITY'S fault.

 

However, when Nick Berg dies it IS the Islamic leader's fault. It's Saddam Hussein's fault. It's Iraq's fault and Iran's fault and Islam's fault. They are all to blame and we should wipe them all off the map. They are all guilty by association.

 

 

That is honest-to-god the thinking that goes around. Isn't it painfully obvious the problem there?

 

-modest

[Southtown]

This is about why the anger and resentment and fear persist and continue to cause anguish and problems among a global population who is not generally inclined to be invested in either.

Correct. Damn the anger and resentment and fear! It's all their fault.

 

Show me an honest conviction and I'll acknowledge a difference.

Show me an honest indictment and I'll acknowledge a similarity.

 

Haditha Killings - Wikipedia

Blackwater Baghdad Killings - Wikipedia

Abu Ghraib Scandal - Wikipedia

 

And don't give me BS sacrificial lamb convictions like Lynndie England. :evil:

You got it.

 

Ultimately, the question is: Do the Iraqis see a difference as well? If their child or husband is taken out by some US military maneuver that we consider justifiable, do you think they see it as justifiable as well?

Ultimately the question is: who is more informed? Americans or Iraqis? Perhaps you should ask: do Creationists see a difference?

 

If the United States were occupied by some powerful foreign nation that was basing their incursion on the notion that we represented an emanant threat to their security, announcing that they were here to protect us from our evil president, and who infiltrated your home in the middle of the night to take you or your teenage son into custody at gun point to be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques because there had been a number of recent incidents in the area with resistance fighters, or what they call terrorists, would you be glad that they were there to keep you and your family safe?

 

If we are only able to see this from our own point of view as the aggressors, we will never understand why we are unable to achieve our ultimate goal of stamping out terrorism, and promoting a peaceful world.

See previous comment.

 

On the other hand, maybe peace isn't what we really want. :(

Speak for yourself.

 

We are operating under a failed policy. It's plain to see, and it's time for a different approach.

 

It's time for change.

Do you have any suggestions? Or do you stop at criticism?

 

That's it! You've hit the nail on the head. This is the difference that makes people feel comfortable.

Sarcasm will get you everywhere.

 

It isn't Bush's fault kids are dying in Iraq. He isn't "ordering" the deaths. He doesn't order civilians to be shot any more than he orders torture. It isn't his fault any more than it's MY fault or YOUR fault or CHRISTIANITY'S fault.

 

However, when Nick Berg dies it IS the Islamic leader's fault. It's Saddam Hussein's fault. It's Iraq's fault and Iran's fault and Islam's fault. They are all to blame and we should wipe them all off the map. They are all guilty by association.

 

 

That is honest-to-god the thinking that goes around. Isn't it painfully obvious the problem there?

 

-modest

See previous comment.

[InfiniteNow]

Southtown, I am somewhat disappointed in your response. That reply above was almost completely hollow and content free, and added little more to the dialog than lingustic feces.

[REASON]

Southtown, I am somewhat disappointed in your response. That reply above was almost completely hollow and content free, and added little more to the dialog than lingustic feces.

 

Don't worry INow, I've come to expect it.

 

Fortunately, I find more solace in his signature than in his words.

[Pyrotex]

Okay guys.

I seem to remember that the title of this thread had something to do with the President of the United States, or with Burning Bushes, or something along those lines. The subject you have drifted off onto is threatening to heat up. Everybody take the day off and come back tomorrow a little more "centered".

 

[deep breath] oooooommmmmm...

[deep breath] oooooommmmmm...

[deep breath] oooooommmmmm...

...

[C1ay]

Recent news reveals that Obama's pastor has some strong anti-American viewpoints that he preaches at times. It also known that Obama's has held good attendance at this church for 20 years. To what extent should this be considered in judging Obama's character?

[freeztar]

Good call Pyro. Perhaps this "Morality of Terrorism" sub-theme can be broken off into its own thread. :hihi:

 

Anyhow, back on topic...

 

For those who will be voting Democrat, how do you feel about a Clinton-Obama ticket, or an Obama-Clinton ticket? Would it change how you vote?

[freeztar]

Recent news reveals that Obama's pastor has some strong anti-American viewpoints that he preaches at times. It also known that Obama's has held good attendance at this church for 20 years. To what extent should this be considered in judging Obama's character?

 

I saw a blurb on this yesterday, but didn't get the full story.

What were the anti-American viewpoints exactly?

[InfiniteNow]

Recent news reveals that Obama's pastor has some strong anti-American viewpoints that he preaches at times.

What about his sentiments do you deem "anti-American?" The fact that he says this country is run by rich white guys? The fact that he brought up our bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima? The fact that he speaks of things that are true?

 

Yeah... out of all the things a reverend says, like people rising from the dead, angels controlling behavior, etc. etc. etc... Of course it's the TRUE comments they make that we should crucify him for. :hihi:

 

 

Obama has attended this church for 20 years, and he has done great things in both the communities and in the Senate. What has changed since he started running for president? I'll tell you... the papparazzi are now video taping his reverend's comments.

 

Wright is far from radical when compared to most reverends in predominantly black areas. His words may be harsh, but they express a very real and underlying resentment and frustration in this country, no matter how much it causes discomfort in many of us. The roaring "Amen!"s in his audience are a clear sign that he is speaking to a sense which is very real and common.

 

I also suggest that he is probably a much better man than those few soundbites we are repeatedly shown on the 24 hour news cycles seem to imply to those of us who have never met him.

 

 

Either way, to suggest this somehow should reflect negatively on Obama is akin to suggesting that because you were sitting in the audience when the CEO of your company made comment which reflected poorly on a group that you are somehow complicit in that comment.

 

Obama has completely and unequivocally denounced the remarks, and IMO it is not exactly an intelligent approach for any of us to attack him as if he made these comments himself.

 

 

What more exactly do people want him to do?

 

YouTube - Obama Denounces Controversial Remarks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFbDpTPd0ac

 

 

 

 

 

It was addressed and discussed on Meet the Press yesterday morning, video available here:

 

msnbc.com Video Player http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23659238#23659238

[C1ay]

What about his sentiments do you deem "anti-American?" The fact that he says this country is run by rich white guys? The fact that he brought up our bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima? The fact that he speaks of things that are true?

 

I cannot list specifically what he has or has not spoken about. I simply pointed out what the media is reporting so the topic would be here for discussion since it is an on topic point. For me, it doesn't matter. He is a liberal candidate that advocates an increase of socialism so he wouldn't get my vote anyhow.

 

FWIW, none of the candidates with hats in the ring have earned my vote thus far. I am interested to know of any reasons that I should vote against any of them. I hate doing that in principle but the process seems to have a hard time coming up with any candidates that are worth voting for the last few election cycles so voting against them has become more of the norm for me :hihi:

[Thunderbird]

Good call Pyro. Perhaps this "Morality of Terrorism" sub-theme can be broken off into its own thread. :hihi:

 

Anyhow, back on topic...

 

For those who will be voting Democrat, how do you feel about a Clinton-Obama ticket, or an Obama-Clinton ticket? Would it change how you vote?

 

I don't think that would happen, Here is a perfect candidate for Obama,

 

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt-L72z09KU http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt-L72z09KU

[C1ay]

For those who will be voting Democrat, how do you feel about a Clinton-Obama ticket, or an Obama-Clinton ticket? Would it change how you vote?

 

Well, I won't be voting Democrat but a Clinton<>Obama ticket might cause me to vote for McCain instead of voting Libertarian.

[InfiniteNow]

I cannot list specifically what he has or has not spoken about.

Okay. That's kind of what I figured. Thanks. :cup:

[Pyrotex]

It's a commonly held piece of wisdom that acknowledging your faults or sins is the first step in overcoming them. But not if the "you" is America itself. :hihi: Heaven help anyone who suggests that America was wrong in starting the Spanish-American War, or the Iraqi War, or in being polluting or fiscally unwise, or in holding onto ancient grudges (Cuba), or having too many folks in prison...

 

Do that, and you're ANTI-AMERICAN!!

 

I'd vote for a Clinton-Obama ticket. In fact, I don't care who's "on top" -- as long as they practice Safe Politics.

 

:evil: