Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Big Orange Junky]

See my thoughts on this are not partisian at all. If the bush administration had been apologetic toward the terrorists I would have said the same thing. Doesn't matter to me who is in the White House, what matters is the action not who performed it. I was against bail outs when Bush was president and I am still against them with Oprama.

Unlike most liberals who are OK with slick willie raping people but not OK with a conservative saying "chick" or whatever else they can think of to be offended by.

I support Oprama on one thing he said this week, that Egypt is NOT our ally. He said the right thing there, they are not our ally now that the muslim brotherhood is in power.

But I still don't support the apologetic tone sent from his administration over the murders of our citizens.

[Professor Tiger]

And remember - they are all looking at us on TV and the internet while their families are living on $300 bucks a year and they have 10,000,000 more reasons to hate us than we have to hate them . . . and they can tell us about tens of thousands of their folks that we killed.

I will never, ever understand the liberal instinct to look at evil and excuse it and half-justify it. Why is it that you can look at people who storm embassies, murder your own innocent countrymen, and you have some innate urge to concoct some kind of justification for it?

Remember when Sinead O'Conor tore up a picture of the pope on SNL? When Robert Maplethorpe did "art" including a crucifix in a jar of urine, and Mary smeared in dung? If Catholics had gone on a rampage and started burning down the Irish embassy (because Sinead O'Conor was Irish) or ransacked art museums across the country, you sure as hell wouldn't feel some bizarre need to tell everybody to "feel the Catholics pain" and "try to understand the cultural sensitivites of the rioters" or "Ireland and the museums deserved what they got for all the horrible things they have done to Catholics over the years."

[Jungle Rat]

Its crazy how America got past those horrible things.

[AugustWest]

Foreign policy is supposed to make us safer, not get Americans killed and bankrupt us. Yet, even as we mourn the loss of four Americans in Libya and watch the Middle East ignite with anti-American fervor, our leaders don't get it.

In one corner, we have the U.S. apologists warning that -- after the murders in Libya and the attack on our embassy in Cairo -- we must be careful not to say or do anything that might hurt someone's feelings. In the other corner, we have the chest-thumpers demanding that we find somebody to shoot -- and shoot them.

I have a better idea: Stop trying to manipulate and manage history on the other side of the globe and then being shocked when things don't turn out the way we wanted. As far as what we do right now in response to the tragic events of this week, it's actually pretty simple. Get our folks out of places they don't need to be -- and out of harm's way -- and cut off every dime of U.S. tax dollars we are sending to clearly ungrateful regimes.

Let's review American foreign policy during the Bush-Obama years. Just imagine for a minute that, in 2002, President Bush granted Iran's Ayatollah one wish above all others. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Supreme Leader would have said, "Can you please kill Saddam Hussein and make sure our mortal enemy Iraq can no longer threaten us. Then, we can get about our goals of destroying Israel, building a nuke and becoming a legitimate thorn in the side of the Western infidels."

Well...

And then there are Afghanistan and Pakistan. After 9/11, going after Bin Laden and al Qaeda was exactly the right thing to do. We were attacked and we attacked back. We must defend ourselves, and we absolutely must have a strong defense. But within a few months, our troops had scattered al Qaeda like ants from a kicked anthill, and Bin Laden had set up housekeeping in Pakistan. Al Qaeda left, but we stayed -- and kept fighting a war that was, in terms of our immediate interests, over. And we're still fighting it today, ignoring the lessons learned at great cost by the Soviet Union and the British Empire.

While we're fighting a war we don't need to fight in Afghanistan, we're pumping billions of dollars into the coffers of our new best friend Pakistan -- making them the second largest recipient of our borrowed and printed dollars on the globe. When we finally found and killed Bin Laden, was anyone surprised that we found him -- you got it -- in Pakistan? And our new best U.S.-financed friends are treating the good Pakistanis who helped us find him like criminals.

Fast forward to Libya. Make no mistake, Muammar Gaddafi was a despicable human being and no reasonable person mourns his demise. But toppling dictators we don't like has not worked out very well for us. We launched hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of missiles to kill the guy, and what do we get? A Libya that cannot even keep its benefactors safe -- and may not even be trying very hard. Somebody needs to ask, and I will be that somebody: As despicable as he was, would our ambassador and three other dedicated public servants have been killed in a Gaddafi-controlled Libya? Are we safer today after launching all those missiles and killing Gaddafi? Clearly not.

In Egypt and the other blossoms of the Arab Spring, is America any safer or our interests any better served as the result of the billions of dollars we are giving away? Again, clearly not.

Oh, and there is one other matter. We're broke. We are borrowing or printing 43 cents of every one of the more than $4 billion a year we are sending to Pakistan, Libya and Egypt. And all those missiles we launched, and the war in Afghanistan are likewise being put on the national credit card. Why are we building roads, bridges, hospitals and schools half a world away on borrowed money? Don't we have those same needs here at home?

It's time to tell and face the truth: The Bush-Obama-and-now-Romney interventionist approach to foreign policy is getting Americans killed and contributing to the bankruptcy of our nation without clear sight of our national interests. By what measure is that good policy?

[Jungle Rat]

Didn't read that. Too long.

[bluetick]

Didn't read that. Too long.

Too bad. A minute and a half and it's got a lot of good points.

Unlike the dopey "we got over Sinead O'Connor and Piss Christ, why can't they get over this?" Never mind that religion is all that most of them have...a dirt floor, a mat in the corner to sleep on and five prayers a day. Whether they're too easily incitable is a ridiculously moot point.

Get our folks out of harms way. Start with Afghanistan - screw 2014.

[AugustWest]

That was Gary Johnson by the way. Vote Libertarian.

[Professor Tiger]

Never mind that religion is all that most of them have...a dirt floor, a mat in the corner to sleep on and five prayers a day. Whether they're too easily incitable is a ridiculously moot point.

The problem is not poverty. There are cultures elsewhere in the world that are at least as poor as the Middle East - Africa and Central America come to mind. But those regions haven't been constant cesspools of religiously motivated violence, misogyny and intolerance since the 7th century. Moreover, Africa and Central America don't have their little islands of super wealth like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Finally, your "poverty breeds violence" is disproven by the fact that many jihadists are well educated and have plenty of good prospects in their countries. Bin Ladin's father was a billionaire. None of the 9/11 highjackers had ever slept on a mat on the dirt floor of the family hut.

If praying to Allah five times a day makes millions of them want to go out and kill infidels, maybe THAT's the problem.

[Professor Tiger]

Get our folks out of harms way. Start with Afghanistan - screw 2014.

I agree. My solution is:

1. By whatever means necessary, get ourselves to the point where we don't need their oil anymore.

2. Get completely out of the Middle East. Have no national interests there whatsoever.

3. Let them live in the backward medieval theocracy they always dreamed of. They can behead each other over Koranic interpretations, keep their women locked up at home, etc. to their heart's content.

4. Ignore them like we do Africa and Central America.

[10ac]

I like the nuculer solution.

[bluetick]

Never mind that religion is all that most of them have...a dirt floor, a mat in the corner to sleep on and five prayers a day. Whether they're too easily incitable is a ridiculously moot point.

The problem is not poverty. There are cultures elsewhere in the world that are at least as poor as the Middle East - Africa and Central America come to mind. But those regions haven't been constant cesspools of religiously motivated violence, misogyny and intolerance since the 7th century. Moreover, Africa and Central America don't have their little islands of super wealth like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Finally, your "poverty breeds violence" is disproven by the fact that many jihadists are well educated and have plenty of good prospects in their countries. Bin Ladin's father was a billionaire. None of the 9/11 highjackers had ever slept on a mat on the dirt floor of the family hut.

Got it. The rioters and rock-throwers are well-healed and smart as a whip.

If praying to Allah five times a day makes millions of them want to go out and kill infidels, maybe THAT'S the problem.

OUR problem is trying to nation-build those crazy sumbitches. Get our people and our money out of there.

[sardis]

This has nothing to do with being poor. It has nothing to do with Palestine. They hate us because our citizens have rights. Our citizens have the right to believe in their own religion and that is unacceptable. Even those who choose to follow Islam in America have more rights than in most Middle Eastern countries. These people are being brought up in a violent culture and religion that can't be remedied with understanding and political rehabilitation. We have tried to appease these animals for over 60 years and the situation is not getting better, it's getting worse. I fault every past President on this. Our response to these type of actions are timid. The Afghan and Iraq Wars were not shows of force but more like policing, occupying, mediating. We had visions of demacratic grandeur amongst the arab world. Turkey and Israel have succeeded because they have large western world influences in their countries. The rest of them have small pockets of people who want democracy, but the rest of the population want Islamic rule and nothing short of that. Supporting tyrranical leaders to rule heavy handed over them only works for so long even with our support, i.e. Shah of Iran.

They will eventually overtake us because we don't have the stomach to do what our grandfathers had the stomach to do. Be willing to stop them no matter what. Be willing to destroy whole neighborhoods and cities that foster this activity and not worry about the collateral damage and environmental impact. This precision type of force we try over and over does very little to stem the tide. Many will say that showing extreme force will just anger them more. My response is that your head is up your ass. They already hate us and want to annihilate us, and boldly say so in front of the UN, yet will sit back and try to "reason" and "understand" to our eventual peril.

[BigRedMan]

Until we can find something to back our American Dollar with besides oil, we will always be dicking around over there.

However, I am in the corner of the big bully. "Oh Egypt, Iran, and Libya, you think you are getting a raw deal, some video out there making fun of you, and oh now you kill 4 people and burn our embassy and just be a general pain in the ass. Ok Libya, you will be the first example. You wanted the thunder so it here comes. "

Start bombing factories, hospitals, and warehouses. Send in troops with orders to shoot anything that moves funny. Gloves are off. Then when it is all done, send them a bulldozer, a shovel, and a cement mixer. Tell them good luck rebuilding and if they get out of line again, they get another asswhooping.

By god, if we are going to be accused of being the big bully of the world and we are just so awful, then start acting like it.

When the UN tries to step in, point a big ass gun at them also. YOU WANT SOME!?! WE WILL BUST YOUR ASS TOO!

Either flex the muscle and get shit under control or simply GTFO and leave them be. There are no reasoning with over the top religious nuts. It has NEVER worked throughout history.

[10ac]

Welcome, brothers!

The alternative needs to be worse than a grass mat and a mud hut.

[Toemeesleather]

Poor 'ol Obammer...he's been victimized by everything and everyone: "the video," W, a Republican House, tsunamis, hurricanes, snow, cold weather, hot weather, Europe, Israel, gas prices, the Tea Party, "not as shovel ready as we thought," "worse economy than we thought,".... blah, blah, blah.

How's a President supposed to deal with all of that and still fundraise and get in a few rounds...er a few dozen...er a few hundred rounds of golf?

He's been subjected to more than any one professional community organizer should have to deal with...he'll enjoy his rest come January.

[Professor Tiger]

My fellow Americans, in the wake of yesterday's events, I wish to comment on this tragedy.

I am saddened that dissidents in the state of South Carolina bombarded and seized Ft. Sumpter. This is a very regrettable and unfortunate incident. Several federal soldiers are no longer alive. Early reports indicate that the local dissidents who conducted the takeover of Ft. Sumpter were angered by the recent publication of a book, "Aunt Fannie's Cabin."

The dissidents were angry because this book is critical of slavery, and portrays solve owners as being superior and prone to violence. We all know that there is no connection between slave ownership and violence. So therefore it is very understandable that the South Carolina dissidents were driven to violence by this unfair portrayal of them as prone to violence.

Those of us from the North must understand the underlying causes behind yesterday's unfortunate incident. Slavery is deeply rooted in the Southern culture. When irresponsible authors criticize slavery, this is deeply offensive to Southerners and deprives them of their dignity. Even more important, we must remember that the vast majority of Southerners live in deep poverty. These poor people have nothing to do but strum their banjos, go to church all the time, and own slaves. Those of us in the North and therefore live in relative prosperity must not impose our moral judgements on slavery or slave owners. That would amount to cultural imperialism. We deeply regret our ugly past when we tried to prevent slavery in some of our Western territories. Southerners have 1,000 reasons to hate us for these crimes.

To show that my apology is sincere, I have ordered the arrest of Harriet Beecher Stowe. This is the United states of America and we will never allow our right of free speech to be twisted so that people might be offended.

I hope expression of good will shows the South that we mean them no harm. I also request that their leaders are forgiving enough to give us our fort back.

-Abraham Lincoln, April 14, 1865

[hedge]

"Rhetoric and partisanship are an indelible part of the landscape. I have R friends who decry the extention of the Patriot Act by Obama who had no problem with it under Bush. And the opposite is true. I have D friends who spoke with great passion about "Bush's" Patriot Act who don't care that it was extended by Obama. How many Rs would have honestly said anything if Bush were president and had bailed out the banks? Etc, etc."

"See my thoughts on this are not partisian at all. If the bush administration had been apologetic toward the terrorists I would have said the same thing. Doesn't matter to me who is in the White House, what matters is the action not who performed it. I was against bail outs when Bush was president and I am still against them with Oprama."

Why did you lie, AA?

[hedge]

"They will eventually overtake us because we don't have the stomach to do what our grandfathers had the stomach to do. Be willing to stop them no matter what. Be willing to destroy whole neighborhoods and cities that foster this activity and not worry about the collateral damage and environmental impact."

Yeah, that strategy worked great in Viet Nam...

[bluetick]

My fellow Americans, in the wake of yesterday's events, I wish to comment on this tragedy.

I am saddened that dissidents in the state of South Carolina bombarded and seized Ft. Sumpter. This is a very regrettable and unfortunate incident. Several federal soldiers are no longer alive. Early reports indicate that the local dissidents who conducted the takeover of Ft. Sumpter were angered by the recent publication of a book, "Aunt Fannie's Cabin."

The dissidents were angry because this book is critical of slavery, and portrays solve owners as being superior and prone to violence. We all know that there is no connection between slave ownership and violence. So therefore it is very understandable that the South Carolina dissidents were driven to violence by this unfair portrayal of them as prone to violence.

Those of us from the North must understand the underlying causes behind yesterday's unfortunate incident. Slavery is deeply rooted in the Southern culture. When irresponsible authors criticize slavery, this is deeply offensive to Southerners and deprives them of their dignity. Even more important, we must remember that the vast majority of Southerners live in deep poverty. These poor people have nothing to do but strum their banjos, go to church all the time, and own slaves. Those of us in the North and therefore live in relative prosperity must not impose our moral judgements on slavery or slave owners. That would amount to cultural imperialism. We deeply regret our ugly past when we tried to prevent slavery in some of our Western territories. Southerners have 1,000 reasons to hate us for these crimes.

To show that my apology is sincere, I have ordered the arrest of Harriet Beecher Stowe. This is the United states of America and we will never allow our right of free speech to be twisted so that people might be offended.

I hope expression of good will shows the South that we mean them no harm. I also request that their leaders are forgiving enough to give us our fort back.

-Abraham Lincoln, April 14, 1865

I love a good historical allegory as much as the next guy, but your Lincoln is commenting on the capture of Ft. Sumter - "in the wake of yesterday's events - in 1865? Seems we Confederates took the fort in '61.

Maybe we do need a modern-day Lincoln to kick the stuffing out of the Muslim religion and get them to straighten up and fly right, same as he did to our Southern forebearers. It'd be easier if the Muslims were rioting and raising hell here, though, instead of their own streets and neighborhoods half a world away. Another trifling point, for sure.

[Jungle Rat]