'MCA go home' vs 'Where was DAP 13 years ago?' at Jonker Walk
What?! Gan qualified his being there as a survey, not to protest? Let alone to lead the protest? Did Mr. Gan Tian Loo realize that the MCA protest carries more weight than DAP protest many times
over. The state government, being UMNO-led government, considers the DAP as the opposition working hand-in-hand with PAS and PKR to oust UMNO from power, rescinding the directive on the request
from DAP leaders will make the party even more popular. I thought, at first, here come the MCA, finally to do what it's supposed to do. Then the expected happened. He got cold feet. The
reporter who covered the protest reported Gan was suddenly cautious . He was like ..."I'm here to lend my support to..the .. no, wait! I am not here to support the traders - but just to do a quick
survey! But I am glad to be standing here with the protesters but reporters, please put it down in black and white I am not, I repeat, am not here as part of the protest. This is the reason the MCA
was shunned, I mean has been shunned by the Chinese. They do not represent the Chinese anymore. They cannot get things done anymore unlike in the old days. Gan admitted his meeting with the chief
minister was fruitless, but would keep trying. Keep trying for what? He should stop embarrassing the MCA and reducing its credibility further by continuing to beg despite being rebuffed earlier.
Again, this proved that the Malaysian Chinese Association has really completely lost its usefulness. If a small matter like Jonker Walk closure was beyond its power then, that 's it.
Judge Roy Moore Like Candidate Trump Fell Victim To Women
THE DRL BLOG
Links You May Like
Ananda Khrishnan Earned Bumiputra Status For For
Indians In Malaysia>More?
when I received a call the other day (night) from a Miss Lee complaining about her fridge not working (she noticed the temperature inside the fridge was warm comparable to room temperature), I asked her to check if the fridge's power switch was at on or off?
Links You May Like
Why Tun Dr Mahathir Was So Powerful When He was Prime Minister?>More Here
How To Stop Drinking Without Stopping!>Read More Here
Opportunist Writers From Indian Community> Read More
Judge Roy Moore Like Candidate Trump Fell Victim To Women>More here
Israel Can Stop Palestinians' Roket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All) >More
Contaminated Blood Coursing Through Muslim Veins A No-No>More
Clinton Or Trump>More
How You Intend To Vote in November?>More
Obama Took The Crown>More Here
Hannah Yeoh Won't Apologize For Wearing Headscarf>More..
Abdullah Rebuffed Them>More
Lim's Horrendous Success>More Here
Lim Guan Eng A Phenomenon>More
Even The Once Mighty British Seem To Have Thrown In The Towel>Read More
Clash Of Titans> More Here
Not Easy Being DAP>Read More
Pak Lah Was Too Kind To Do What Was Expected Of Him>More Here
President Trump: James Comey, You Are Fired>More
Not Easy Being MCA Leaders>More
A Commander-in-chief Who Doesn't Act Like One>More..
Nobel Prize Winners>More..
Trump Had Better Keep His Promise>More
Warning For The Rich And Powerful>Read More
Ananda Khrishnan Earned Bumiputra Status For For
Indians In Malaysia>More?
MCA Must Demand Return Of All Its Traditional
Seats>Read More
A British Adventurer Who Became King By His Own
Hand>Read More
Where's The MAS Flight MH370 Now>More..
The Greatest Medicine
Man Ever Lived>Read More
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His
Enemies And Win>More here
Israel Can Stop Rocket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All)
>Read More...
The Greatest Medicine Man Ever Lived>Read More
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His Enemies And Win>More here
Israel Can Stop Rocket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All) >Read More...
By David Lang
The following stories may fire your imagination, pique your interest. Some say 1MDB is Malaysia's Sovereign Wealth fund; to others they asked what wealth fund when its total capitalization is just One million ringgit? But, then again, if you think you can look down on the pet idea of the Malaysian prime minister, think again. His idea has the potential of turning the now world famous - or shall we say, infamous - 1Malaysia Development Berhad into a giant corporation you can ever imagine - even bigger than Bill Gate's Microsoft! At least, it could be, if the original course is stayed. It was supposed to inspire Malaysians to think big besides advance growth, according to its slogans screaming out of giant bill boards throughout the country. 'Backed' by the finance ministry who owns it - which means money will never be the problem - it can only succeed. But..it didn't. It failed! That's why it may have piqued many people's curiosity. How can a company flush with cash and can borrow any amount (billions) anytime could fail? Well, this may be in line with your thinking. People have seen since its inception - I mean after its name was changed in 1999 from Trengganu Investment Authority (TIA) to the present - it hasn't done any business! I have used present tense deliberately. It hasn't done any business yet. I mean if you are in business you need to make profit or find ways to make profit. Or close shop. Oh, I had heard about their filings of tax returns and hiring of a couple of internationally known auditors to sign off on their balance sheets; but these concerned only the company's borrowings and interests to be paid. Two massive bonds were issued to the tune of $7 billions. To buy up power plants. Again I want to say if you are in business to make money even investing in independent Power Plants, it should be done with the view to making a profit. The decision may be long term or short term, it doesn't matter, it has to make money, or no deal. May be they have done the right thing. Maybe luck was not on their side. Still, the amount is staggering. I didn't know having or managing so much money can be a problem! But many - especially the Malays - have not given up hope yet. Yes, may be the durians are just ripening; may be they need time and may fall soon!
This is a automatic time
Malaysia's Woes
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Chinese The Real Kingmaker In Malaysian Politics
Why 1MDB Sovereign Wealth Fund Failed?
Local politics
Opportunit Writers From Indian Community
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Alcohol Effect: (PAS' Muslim Now Concerned About Non- Muslims' Health?
Hannah Yeoh Won't Apologize For Wearing Headscarf
A Commander-in-chief Who Doesn't Act Like One
Israel Has No Choice But To Deter
Contaminated Blood Coursing Through Muslim Veins
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His Enemies And Win
Chinese The Real Kingmaker In Malaysian Politics
Trump Had Better Keep His Promise
President Trump: James Comey, You Are Fired
About Dr Mahathir
Why Tun Dr Mahathir Was So Powerful When He Was Prime Minister?
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Recent Articles
This video is presented courtesy of Sally Page:
Malaysia's Vision 2020
By:David Lang
Malaysia is supposed to be on its way to becoming a developed nation, by the year 2020. Will she make it (in less than five years -tick-tuck, tick-tuck)? There is no doubt the year 2020 is coming whether the country is ready or not, and if that will be the only requirement then Malaysia will attain that developed nation status on schedule. There is a question, though, Will Malaysia, or Malaysians, for that matter, be ready for that status as far as their affluence, quality of life's concern? Currently Malaysia's GNI per capita stood at US$10060. According to the World Bank high income economies are those with GNI per capita of US$12,745. And until Malaysians earn much more to be there, the developed nation status may not be achieved even by the year 2020. The futility of declaring a country a high income country when it's not, achieves nothing. May be even counter-productive; it lulls the country into false sense of success and premature celebration. Don't forget China reportedly overtook Japan as the world's second largest economy, but in actual fact China's citizens' ca pita income is a fraction of the incomes of the Japanese who earn $37,000. Chinese incomes range from $13,000. China's gross domestic product, taken as a whole, may beat Japan's, but in term of quality of life, and GNI per capita income, the criteria for a developed nation status, China still has a lot of catching up to do. That's why China still qualifies as recipient of Japan's economic aid meant for developing countries. Comparing with the Chinese per capita domestic product, Malaysia is even worse off. Unless the government bucks up and rushes to create more wealth for its citizens, the Vision 2020 dream may remain just that ..a dream.
Jun 29, 2013
Jun 22, 2013
Apr 20, 2013
Apr 6, 2013
Apr 1, 2013
Feb 15, 2013
How To Repair Your Own Refrigerator And Save A Bundle
when I received a call the other day (night) from a Miss Lee complaining about her fridge not working (she noticed the temperature inside the fridge was warm comparable to room temperature), I asked her to check if the fridge's power switch was at on or off?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Apr 7, 2018
Content From obama&hislegacy.newsvine.com
By:David Lang
November 28, 2017 Updated
Today:November 28, 2017
However..if you are interested (for a reason) in reading the content from
Obama&HisLegacy again you are in luck. Following are the content retrieved
from the Newsvine.com
Content From My MSNBC Newsvine
column:
Muslim Brotherhood will be a force to be reckoned with in Egypt after the
generals are disowned by US
By Obama&HisLegacy
Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:44 AM
world-newspresident-obamamuslim-brotherhoodmubaraktahrir-squarefiel
Everything happens for a reason; first, President Obama wished to leave a
legacy to future generations to come; second, he copied Mao Tse Tung's
disastrous revolution hoping to fix the bugs, only to see his plans go out of
control.
Like Mao, Obama thought he would be obeyed by his millions-strong 'Red
Gouards.' Like Mao's Red Guards, the Egyptian protesters owe no gratitude or
allegiance to anyone; not even Obama, their seeming creator.
Gouards.' Like Mao's Red Guards, the Egyptian protesters owe no gratitude or
allegiance to anyone; not even Obama, their seeming creator.
Obama was useful to them in the beginning.There's no way they could possibly
topple President Hosni Mubarak on their own then; but even the milk has expiry
date!
President Obama was really helpful in those days and they were grateful, they
were; but that's it! They realise (now) their sense of worth: they're no
longer the poors and down-trodden of Egypt; they matter. They want things done
according to their whims and fancies. If they don't like a certain high
official, they want to see him fired, if not packed to prison too.
Although numerous former leaders or officials from the time of Mubarak rule
have been singled out, shamed, prosecuted (or victimized), don't expect these
mobs to be satisfied...until they're done ruining everyone's life that they're
jealous of.
After counting their gains for months and wasting them, they are back to
Tahrir square where it all began.
Tahrir square where it all began.
Although Mubarak was gone, which was what many then wanted so much that they
united to make it happen, these mobs are not done yet, not in a million years,
in fact. They know what they can do. They have the numbers. They can do as
they please, if you will. For now, they will be mighty pleased if the generals
or their chief are shown the exit like Mubarak.
Whether any of these generals would face any investigation or prosection they
would decide later. The most important thing now is to make them cede power
first! And if the generals, including their field marshall, think by agreeing
to voluntarily give up power hoping to get into the good book of the
protesters or escape prosecution, they will regret to the end. As the cases of
fomer president Mubarak and Muammar Qaddafi had shown, once you lose power you
lose everything: your rights, possessions or freedoms and, unfortunately for
Qaddafi and his sons, lives.
It remains to be seen how President Salleh of Yemen will fare after allegedly
securing for himself , family and loyal friends a deal of immunity from
prosecution. Some complaints have been voiced by some protesters over the
terms which they claimed were too generous. They want Salleh to face the
music, as they say. But that won't likely happen as long as the Yemeni
president remains a friend of Saudi Arabia. And so far, very much so. When he
was seriously wounded recently he was flown to Riyadh and remained there until
fully recoverd.
Saudi Arabia turned out to be king-maker nowadays. What they say goes. Even
President Obama needs Saudi Arabia, and will not do anything to displease the
Kingdom. When President Obama bowed and kissed King Abdullah's hand, for which
he was criticized severely, he didn't do it accidentally.
securing for himself , family and loyal friends a deal of immunity from
prosecution. Some complaints have been voiced by some protesters over the
terms which they claimed were too generous. They want Salleh to face the
music, as they say. But that won't likely happen as long as the Yemeni
president remains a friend of Saudi Arabia. And so far, very much so. When he
was seriously wounded recently he was flown to Riyadh and remained there until
fully recoverd.
Saudi Arabia turned out to be king-maker nowadays. What they say goes. Even
President Obama needs Saudi Arabia, and will not do anything to displease the
Kingdom. When President Obama bowed and kissed King Abdullah's hand, for which
he was criticized severely, he didn't do it accidentally.
When Saudi Arabia sent troops to help Bahrain's Sunni minority King crush the
Shiite (majority) uprising recently, Obama didn't lift a finger to help the
shiites. So the protesters stopped protesting since. So, for the US under
President Obama, it's not about human rights, per se. Obama's statement that
unless we intervened in Libya to protect civilians the world's conscience
would be tainted with Libyans' blod, was a sham,. a ploy to get the American
people to support his venture in Libya which would bring no benefit whatsoever
to the world.
If he really believes in justice, he should extend the same help to the
shiites of Bahrain who are the majority of the population but denied their
rights by the minority sunnis, he extended to the Egyptian and Libyan
protesters. He should support all legitimate protests irrespective of who or
who they associate with.
As at present, those in Obama's good book have been left untouched; while
President Assad is next (to be deposed).
But before that happens, the man in immediate danger is Field Marshall
Tantawi. As the US government started demanding openly for the Egyptian
military to give up powers, it won't be long before the trade-mark arm-
twisting starts. May be it already did.
Tantawi. As the US government started demanding openly for the Egyptian
military to give up powers, it won't be long before the trade-mark arm-
twisting starts. May be it already did.
What a shame. A debacle. Faux pas. What outrageous. This unscrupulous US
government is a blot on US good name for generations to come. They have
destroyed and are destroying whatever peace and orders and norms that, while
not perfect, have served us fairly well for a long time. For instance, a
stable Egypt under Mubarak had been boon for peace between the Israelis and
Arabs for decades.
When Mubarak fell, people feared the worst. Fortunately, however, the generals
stepped in in time to prevent the slide.. If the military is weakened and goes
the way of Mubarak, who can step in..this time? The Tahrir square protesters?
I doubt (they are a tiny minority of the Egyptian population, if they qualifiy
as even that. During the recent referendum they were firmly rejected by the
Egyptian voters who voted for the MB, remember? Although a devil also but at
least they 're known devils, they must have thought to themselves.
How about Muslim Brotherhood? It will not be easy for them to step in the
shoes of Mubarak or the Military Council, as the majority of Egyptians are
secular but still possible. If that happens, the man to blame is none other
than President Obama. From day one, Obama went out of his way to pave the ways
for the Muslim Brotherhood.
If the Muslim Brotherhood goes on to rule Egypt and abolish the peace treaty
between Israel and Egypt, peace and transquillity in the Middle East will be
destroyed, and so will Obama's dream legacy.
Do you wish to know more?
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
16 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Orly HolmesNov 27, 2011
#1
#1
comment author avatar
Obamas Middle East policy, if he ever had one, is unraveling. His affronts to
the Israelis have convinced these that if they must go it alone against Iran,
they will. The much -touted ''Arab Spring'' is coming apart at the seams. the
Mubarek vice PM, as indicated in the above article, was elected with a clear
majority, and while the ''Tahirists'' seek to block his seating, more and more
Egyptians are tiring of the whole ''occupy'' flavour of the protests are are
throwing in with the ''devil'' of stability. Obama has been sucker-punched not
once by the Russians [ the AMD rebuff last week], but again in discovering
that they have offloaded anti-air missiles in Syria where the US Navy had no
immediate presence, the loss of dozens of CIA agent covers in Lebanon, the
creaky Libyan situation which is descending into more violence as power-plays
resume, and now, the NATO fiasco in Pakistan.
Thus Obama is being outflanked by Shia, Sunni, as well as the Russians and
remains ignorant due to his own follies, regarding Israeli intentions.
Obamas Middle East policy, if he ever had one, is unraveling. His affronts to
the Israelis have convinced these that if they must go it alone against Iran,
they will. The much -touted ''Arab Spring'' is coming apart at the seams. the
Mubarek vice PM, as indicated in the above article, was elected with a clear
majority, and while the ''Tahirists'' seek to block his seating, more and more
Egyptians are tiring of the whole ''occupy'' flavour of the protests are are
throwing in with the ''devil'' of stability. Obama has been sucker-punched not
once by the Russians [ the AMD rebuff last week], but again in discovering
that they have offloaded anti-air missiles in Syria where the US Navy had no
immediate presence, the loss of dozens of CIA agent covers in Lebanon, the
creaky Libyan situation which is descending into more violence as power-plays
resume, and now, the NATO fiasco in Pakistan.
Thus Obama is being outflanked by Shia, Sunni, as well as the Russians and
remains ignorant due to his own follies, regarding Israeli intentions.
4SHAREREPORT
Neron KesarNov 28, 2011
Neron KesarNov 28, 2011
#1.1
comment author avatar
Orly, do you mind cross-posting this comment over here:
"Getting Out",
http://jackjacobs.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/27/9048288-getting-out
Thank you.
2SHAREREPORT
D Luniz-1282741Nov 27, 2011
comment author avatar
Orly, do you mind cross-posting this comment over here:
"Getting Out",
http://jackjacobs.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/27/9048288-getting-out
Thank you.
2SHAREREPORT
D Luniz-1282741Nov 27, 2011
#3
comment author avatar
So, what should have been done?
send troops to keep Hosini in power?
in the end Egypt is a soverian(sp) nation, we might not like it, but their
people have a right to choose their method of governace
1SHAREREPORT
njmickNov 27, 2011
comment author avatar
So, what should have been done?
send troops to keep Hosini in power?
in the end Egypt is a soverian(sp) nation, we might not like it, but their
people have a right to choose their method of governace
1SHAREREPORT
njmickNov 27, 2011
#3.1
comment author avatar
How about just stay out of it !
5SHAREREPORT
Rants-opineNov 27, 2011
comment author avatar
How about just stay out of it !
5SHAREREPORT
Rants-opineNov 27, 2011
#4
comment author avatar
There was a reason the U.S. propped up Dictators in the Middle East,
stability. There was a reason that the Muslim Brotherhood was banned from
those same countries. The Muslim Brotherhood were collaborators with the
Nazi's during World War II and supported and still support the elimination of
all Jews and the State of Israel. As the Arab Spring begins to unwind, if the
Muslim Brotherhood take control of Egypt and Libya I predict a very unstable
region. Syria is next in the their sites.
Obama's foreign policies, lack of, has created the issues and if re-elected
and Putin is elected in Russia, Obama will lose every time. Obama wants to
change America to a Marxists State and he can not do that without a war, then
make the changes under guise of citizens protection.
comment author avatar
There was a reason the U.S. propped up Dictators in the Middle East,
stability. There was a reason that the Muslim Brotherhood was banned from
those same countries. The Muslim Brotherhood were collaborators with the
Nazi's during World War II and supported and still support the elimination of
all Jews and the State of Israel. As the Arab Spring begins to unwind, if the
Muslim Brotherhood take control of Egypt and Libya I predict a very unstable
region. Syria is next in the their sites.
Obama's foreign policies, lack of, has created the issues and if re-elected
and Putin is elected in Russia, Obama will lose every time. Obama wants to
change America to a Marxists State and he can not do that without a war, then
make the changes under guise of citizens protection.
3SHAREREPORT
rlkwilldoNov 29, 2011
#4.1
comment author avatar
So where exactly is this red guard mentioned in the article? The Middle East
is in need of new leadership and if that's what they desire who are we to try
and decide it for them.
0SHAREREPORT
njmickNov 27, 2011
rlkwilldoNov 29, 2011
#4.1
comment author avatar
So where exactly is this red guard mentioned in the article? The Middle East
is in need of new leadership and if that's what they desire who are we to try
and decide it for them.
0SHAREREPORT
njmickNov 27, 2011
#5
comment author avatar
Not only in Egypt but Syria has well along with all the other so called "Arab
Spring" nations, this is not a call to democracy but a call for the further
Islamization of the Arab world. We see it unfolding before our very eyes but
yet we are pressured to believe what were told and not whats actually
happening. Mubarak,Assad and Saddam may have been tyrants but they did manage
to keep radical in check,something that doesn't seem to sit well with Obama.
4SHAREREPORT
Vladimir Putin is a WimpNov 27, 2011
#6
comment author avatar
This article reads like mental diarrhea; seriously, its like a mythical place
where ethics and critical thinking go to stare into the void of uncreation and
ponder nihilism.
comment author avatar
This article reads like mental diarrhea; seriously, its like a mythical place
where ethics and critical thinking go to stare into the void of uncreation and
ponder nihilism.
There are so many logical fallacies and attempts to manipulate the reader with
rhetoric, it would take a person all day to go through line by line and
dismantle it, resulting in a far larger post than the article itself since it
takes way more text to explain a distortion of the truth or an outright lie
does to write..
"he copied Mao Tse Tung's disastrous revolution hoping to fix the bugs, only
to see his plans go out of control."
I've lived in China, half my family lived either through the revolution and
under the tyrrany of Mao's government.
By claiming that Obama and Mao are very similar, then I cannot seriously
consider you a rational or honest human being.
rhetoric, it would take a person all day to go through line by line and
dismantle it, resulting in a far larger post than the article itself since it
takes way more text to explain a distortion of the truth or an outright lie
does to write..
"he copied Mao Tse Tung's disastrous revolution hoping to fix the bugs, only
to see his plans go out of control."
I've lived in China, half my family lived either through the revolution and
under the tyrrany of Mao's government.
By claiming that Obama and Mao are very similar, then I cannot seriously
consider you a rational or honest human being.
Mao didn't allow people to vote.
Everyone around him, even his wife, lived in mortal fear of the man.
By the evidence that you can even write this article even remotely without
fear of men beating you to death in your home, it is clear they are nothing
alike.
Everyone around him, even his wife, lived in mortal fear of the man.
By the evidence that you can even write this article even remotely without
fear of men beating you to death in your home, it is clear they are nothing
alike.
Mao executed all of his rivals or imprisoned them in hell-holes.
He didn't just outlaw pre-marrital sex (which he did), he outlawed dating
itself. A crime punishable by death or imprisonment.
Wearing blue jeans, punishable by death.
Wearing any unapproved of clothing; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Dancing; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Listening to western rock music; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Being homosexual; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Buying ANYTHING, inlcuding food without using approved methods; punishable by
death. The saying went '1000 yuan will only buy you a bullet'.
Anything considered unusual or different than a strictly regimented lifestyle;
hooliganism, punishable by death.
Pornography; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Prostitution; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Drugs; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Only a fool would compare the two.
Mao rose to power on the backs thousands of dead men. Obama was elected to
office.
He didn't just outlaw pre-marrital sex (which he did), he outlawed dating
itself. A crime punishable by death or imprisonment.
Wearing blue jeans, punishable by death.
Wearing any unapproved of clothing; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Dancing; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Listening to western rock music; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Being homosexual; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Buying ANYTHING, inlcuding food without using approved methods; punishable by
death. The saying went '1000 yuan will only buy you a bullet'.
Anything considered unusual or different than a strictly regimented lifestyle;
hooliganism, punishable by death.
Pornography; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Prostitution; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Drugs; hooliganism, punishable by death.
Only a fool would compare the two.
Mao rose to power on the backs thousands of dead men. Obama was elected to
office.
Mao got big and fat while millions starved to death.
Obama gets criticized for encouraging programs to feed the poor; Mao didn't
give a rat's @!$%#. If you weren't useful, he didn't care if you starved to
death.
Obama gets criticized for encouraging programs to feed the poor; Mao didn't
give a rat's @!$%#. If you weren't useful, he didn't care if you starved to
death.
My father in law lost seven siblings during the Sino-wars and was made to work
in a communal farm just south of Siberia after that because he refused to
write a testimony of corruption against one of his school teachers. One third
of the men died of disease, malnutrtion or exposure every year; he was there
for four years. He lost an ear and most of the skin on one of his hands to
frost bite.
My friend Peng's grandfather was shot to death for being a ROC officer.
Comparing Obama to Mao is as ridiculous as comparing Gerald Ford to Adolph
Hitler. From the very first paragraph of this article, it is clear to me that
you have absolutely nothing to offer in the way of a rational
discussion.
in a communal farm just south of Siberia after that because he refused to
write a testimony of corruption against one of his school teachers. One third
of the men died of disease, malnutrtion or exposure every year; he was there
for four years. He lost an ear and most of the skin on one of his hands to
frost bite.
My friend Peng's grandfather was shot to death for being a ROC officer.
Comparing Obama to Mao is as ridiculous as comparing Gerald Ford to Adolph
Hitler. From the very first paragraph of this article, it is clear to me that
you have absolutely nothing to offer in the way of a rational
discussion.
11SHAREREPORT
dwillieNov 28, 2011
#6.1
comment author avatar
Chris, thank you for cogently rebutting at least one of the intellectually
bankrupt arguments presented by the ridiculously inane article above. I would
vote your post up 100 times if I could.
5SHAREREPORT
Simplelogic-007Nov 29, 2011
dwillieNov 28, 2011
#6.1
comment author avatar
Chris, thank you for cogently rebutting at least one of the intellectually
bankrupt arguments presented by the ridiculously inane article above. I would
vote your post up 100 times if I could.
5SHAREREPORT
Simplelogic-007Nov 29, 2011
#6.2
comment author avatar
Well said Chris, spot on. Saved me a lot of writing.
3SHAREREPORT
dwillieNov 28, 2011/div>
comment author avatar
Well said Chris, spot on. Saved me a lot of writing.
3SHAREREPORT
dwillieNov 28, 2011/div>
#7
comment author avatar
The article and a number of vine comments provide clear demonstration of Obama
Derangement Syndrome run amok. I don't recall Obama being in office when we
invaded Iraq, took out Saddam and told the people to vote in a new government
at the cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of
dollars. Absurdly, the author now believes that the Obama Administration is
the initiator of the popular uprisings in Egypt and argues that Mubarak should
have been propped up in spite of the Arab Spring ushered in by actions that
began prior to the current Administration taking office. Apparently, we should
not have supported the removal of the person who ordered the murder of at
least 183 Americans, even when it had the support of the Arab League.
Correctly, the Obama Administration has taken a generally hands off approach
to Arab Spring uprisings against dictators. Rabid Obama-haters seem to have
forgotten that today's Iraq resulted from a rebellion that ousted the Shah of
Iran, a dictator propped up by the United States.
That Obama haters would employ the most insipidly obtuse arguments to once
again attack the Administration is no surprise. The line of thinking presented
by the article and a number of concurring vine posts is comically inane and
intellectually impotent.
3SHAREREPORT
Orly HolmesNov 28, 2011
comment author avatar
The article and a number of vine comments provide clear demonstration of Obama
Derangement Syndrome run amok. I don't recall Obama being in office when we
invaded Iraq, took out Saddam and told the people to vote in a new government
at the cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of
dollars. Absurdly, the author now believes that the Obama Administration is
the initiator of the popular uprisings in Egypt and argues that Mubarak should
have been propped up in spite of the Arab Spring ushered in by actions that
began prior to the current Administration taking office. Apparently, we should
not have supported the removal of the person who ordered the murder of at
least 183 Americans, even when it had the support of the Arab League.
Correctly, the Obama Administration has taken a generally hands off approach
to Arab Spring uprisings against dictators. Rabid Obama-haters seem to have
forgotten that today's Iraq resulted from a rebellion that ousted the Shah of
Iran, a dictator propped up by the United States.
That Obama haters would employ the most insipidly obtuse arguments to once
again attack the Administration is no surprise. The line of thinking presented
by the article and a number of concurring vine posts is comically inane and
intellectually impotent.
3SHAREREPORT
Orly HolmesNov 28, 2011
#7.1
comment author avatar
Nonsense. As an Obama partisan, such feelings are as understandable as they
are irrelevant. It is the series of current blunders [ the NATO/Pak mess being
but one, in which Obama is being burned in effigy as I write, not by American
ODS types but by other Pakistanis],and impotent inertia as regards Iran, and
Syria, and Israel, and the Mahgreb all at once, which contributes to longer-
term failures regarding the administrations policies in this region.
comment author avatar
Nonsense. As an Obama partisan, such feelings are as understandable as they
are irrelevant. It is the series of current blunders [ the NATO/Pak mess being
but one, in which Obama is being burned in effigy as I write, not by American
ODS types but by other Pakistanis],and impotent inertia as regards Iran, and
Syria, and Israel, and the Mahgreb all at once, which contributes to longer-
term failures regarding the administrations policies in this region.
Russias shot-calling regarding the demand that the US back off from both AMD
and Syrian sanctions is but one area. The administration has long ignored the
military technological assistance between Russia and Iran which has produced
the nations nuclear program advances, ballistic submarine construction [ Iran
now claiming that it has sent three with a fourth to quickly follow into the
Persian Gulf this weekend], long-range missile and anti-air capability which
the Russians are now affording Assad in Syria as well.
and Syrian sanctions is but one area. The administration has long ignored the
military technological assistance between Russia and Iran which has produced
the nations nuclear program advances, ballistic submarine construction [ Iran
now claiming that it has sent three with a fourth to quickly follow into the
Persian Gulf this weekend], long-range missile and anti-air capability which
the Russians are now affording Assad in Syria as well.
Medveydev is getting the better of Obama here. Further, he must stand by
helplessly as chaos erupts in Libya among warring factions who will reject
Obama and the US as thouroughly as Karzai in Afghanistan , al-Maliki in Iraq,
Netanyahu in Israel, Assad in Syria,and the Mubarakist /military bloc in Eqypt
are doing now. Each will move on their own accords assisted at turns by either
Russian or Chinese overture which the US will be helpless to forestall. That
these events will lead to further isolation of the Jewish state is taken for
granted among the regions moderates, who are confronted with the revelation
that even their own Sunni-majority sanctions aimed at Syria are worse than
useless insofar as Iran has established itself as a main protector, and as it
is poised to become the dominant force in the Middle East with all that this
will entail.
helplessly as chaos erupts in Libya among warring factions who will reject
Obama and the US as thouroughly as Karzai in Afghanistan , al-Maliki in Iraq,
Netanyahu in Israel, Assad in Syria,and the Mubarakist /military bloc in Eqypt
are doing now. Each will move on their own accords assisted at turns by either
Russian or Chinese overture which the US will be helpless to forestall. That
these events will lead to further isolation of the Jewish state is taken for
granted among the regions moderates, who are confronted with the revelation
that even their own Sunni-majority sanctions aimed at Syria are worse than
useless insofar as Iran has established itself as a main protector, and as it
is poised to become the dominant force in the Middle East with all that this
will entail.
Taken in short-term snapshots, Obamas policies in this region [ the NATO
airwar against Libya and the outing of Qadaffi, the capture and killing of bin
Laden, the Helmund Province ISAF offensives] appear to be the work of a
successful and robust American foreign policy. When viewed in its longer term
and bigger picture, we see cracks and abject failures in these policies
stemming from this administrations own ''failures of imagination'', its
dealing from a de facto position of weakness regarding the Syrians, Iraqis [
which has begun the process of morphing into an Iranian puppet state with the
absorbtion of the Sadrists into the nations security apparatus], Iran, the
Russians, who are meddling to the hilt in this region, as well as its inertia
regarding the long-elusive ''peace process'' in Israel, and it's inability to
avert an Israeli-Iranian showdown.
airwar against Libya and the outing of Qadaffi, the capture and killing of bin
Laden, the Helmund Province ISAF offensives] appear to be the work of a
successful and robust American foreign policy. When viewed in its longer term
and bigger picture, we see cracks and abject failures in these policies
stemming from this administrations own ''failures of imagination'', its
dealing from a de facto position of weakness regarding the Syrians, Iraqis [
which has begun the process of morphing into an Iranian puppet state with the
absorbtion of the Sadrists into the nations security apparatus], Iran, the
Russians, who are meddling to the hilt in this region, as well as its inertia
regarding the long-elusive ''peace process'' in Israel, and it's inability to
avert an Israeli-Iranian showdown.
1SHAREREPORT
Neron KesarNov 28, 2011
Neron KesarNov 28, 2011
#7.2
comment author avatar
as well as its inertia regarding the long-elusive ''peace process'' in Israel,
and it's inability to avert an Israeli-Iranian showdown.
NATO had vowed to move in as peacekeepers if asked by both sides on condition
of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
2SHAREREPORT
dwillieNov 28, 2011
comment author avatar
as well as its inertia regarding the long-elusive ''peace process'' in Israel,
and it's inability to avert an Israeli-Iranian showdown.
NATO had vowed to move in as peacekeepers if asked by both sides on condition
of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
2SHAREREPORT
dwillieNov 28, 2011
#7.3
comment author avatar
You're the one posting nonsense, Orly, as you berate the current
Administration for simply being in office during events that have origins far
in advance of it coming in. Sadrists in Iraq? Really? To the extent that they
are in power, they got there because the United States took out Saddam
(someone the United States previously propped up) and told the people of Iraq
to vote for whoever they wanted. Not only did any of this occur under the
Obama Administration, but then Senator Obama was one of the few who VOTED
AGAINST the invasion of Iraq. Either you really haven't been paying attention
to the last decade of Middle East activity, Orly, or in true ODS manner you
stolidly attempt to wedge a set of facts into an inane point of view
predetermined by nothing but a wish for it to be so. Sadrists would not be in
power if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Orly, and we would not have painted ourselves
into a corner with a thinly stretched military and a war-weary electorate in
the face of Iran's moves. Clearly, the invasion of Iraq is the biggest foreign
policy blunder of at least the last half century and the current president
tasked with cleaning up the $hit spread by Neocon idiocy not only didn't put
us there, but actually voted against us going there.
comment author avatar
You're the one posting nonsense, Orly, as you berate the current
Administration for simply being in office during events that have origins far
in advance of it coming in. Sadrists in Iraq? Really? To the extent that they
are in power, they got there because the United States took out Saddam
(someone the United States previously propped up) and told the people of Iraq
to vote for whoever they wanted. Not only did any of this occur under the
Obama Administration, but then Senator Obama was one of the few who VOTED
AGAINST the invasion of Iraq. Either you really haven't been paying attention
to the last decade of Middle East activity, Orly, or in true ODS manner you
stolidly attempt to wedge a set of facts into an inane point of view
predetermined by nothing but a wish for it to be so. Sadrists would not be in
power if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Orly, and we would not have painted ourselves
into a corner with a thinly stretched military and a war-weary electorate in
the face of Iran's moves. Clearly, the invasion of Iraq is the biggest foreign
policy blunder of at least the last half century and the current president
tasked with cleaning up the $hit spread by Neocon idiocy not only didn't put
us there, but actually voted against us going there.
NATO/Pak mess? Any remotely aware foreign policy observer knows that US-
Pakistan is a relationship of base necessity and convenience. Continuing
strained relations and even a severing of the same is not a bad trade given
the number of terrorists - including Osama Bin Laden - caught and killed over
the last two and a half years. Your rhetorical support of a country that
clearly harbors those who have attacked the United States is another prima
facie example of ODS. Syria? Even the Arab League has now imposed sanctions on
Assad and as with Egypt, the absolute best place for the United States to be
is away from the middle of that mess in any kind of visible way. Neither of us
knows what is specifically happening in diplomatic circles but I have no doubt
that such work is occurring.C
Pakistan is a relationship of base necessity and convenience. Continuing
strained relations and even a severing of the same is not a bad trade given
the number of terrorists - including Osama Bin Laden - caught and killed over
the last two and a half years. Your rhetorical support of a country that
clearly harbors those who have attacked the United States is another prima
facie example of ODS. Syria? Even the Arab League has now imposed sanctions on
Assad and as with Egypt, the absolute best place for the United States to be
is away from the middle of that mess in any kind of visible way. Neither of us
knows what is specifically happening in diplomatic circles but I have no doubt
that such work is occurring.C
Nothing in the article above or in the reflexively obtuse concurring posts
holds the slightest bit of credibility, Orly. Perhaps most stupid of all is
the underlying notion that two and a half years of diplomacy and war under the
Obama Administration can bring favorable conclusion to a Middle East crap
storm decades in the making. The Iranian Revolution that ousted the American-
backed Shah of Iran and installed a Muslim theocracy occurred when the current
president was in high school and their hostility toward Israel was there from
the beginning. But now you're concerned? H.W.Bush was smart enough not to go
in after Saddam during the Gulf War because of the regional instability such a
move would cause. But his son had a different set of Neocon friends and in
true idiotic frat-boy manner did hopefully not irreparable damage by invading
Iraq and strengthening Iran.
holds the slightest bit of credibility, Orly. Perhaps most stupid of all is
the underlying notion that two and a half years of diplomacy and war under the
Obama Administration can bring favorable conclusion to a Middle East crap
storm decades in the making. The Iranian Revolution that ousted the American-
backed Shah of Iran and installed a Muslim theocracy occurred when the current
president was in high school and their hostility toward Israel was there from
the beginning. But now you're concerned? H.W.Bush was smart enough not to go
in after Saddam during the Gulf War because of the regional instability such a
move would cause. But his son had a different set of Neocon friends and in
true idiotic frat-boy manner did hopefully not irreparable damage by invading
Iraq and strengthening Iran.
At least Herman Cain admits he doesn't know jack about foreign policy. The
intellectual impotence proffered by the above article and several of its
concurring Vine posts are far more stunning in their inanity and transparent
in their sole aim - to create an attack narrative against the current
Administration, facts be damned. Pathetic but not unexpected.
intellectual impotence proffered by the above article and several of its
concurring Vine posts are far more stunning in their inanity and transparent
in their sole aim - to create an attack narrative against the current
Administration, facts be damned. Pathetic but not unexpected.
2SHAREREPORT
Neron KesarNov 28, 2011
#8
comment author avatar
I disagree.
The military irrespective of its faults is a stabilizing influence. The
military should stay the course and wait for elections (beginning tomorrow) to
determine the future of Egypt.
2SHAREREPORT
SyriaInTurmoilMar 24, 2012
Neron KesarNov 28, 2011
#8
comment author avatar
I disagree.
The military irrespective of its faults is a stabilizing influence. The
military should stay the course and wait for elections (beginning tomorrow) to
determine the future of Egypt.
2SHAREREPORT
SyriaInTurmoilMar 24, 2012
#10
comment author avatar
The people of Egypt who number more than 80 millions are disillusioned after
they had been taken for a ride by the 'people of Egypt' who numbered a mere
few hundred thousands, and vented their anger at the usurping youths by
snubbing them at the referendum and the first post-Mubarak election.
Although the Muslim Brotherhood did well, or better than expected, it didn't
mean the Egyptian people who are mostly secular prefer the MB but they had no
choice, as they had observed the behaviors of the revolutionary protesters
they cannot be trusted.
The MB, on the contrary, in the meantime had been working hard to fool the
Egyptians, including the coptic Christians, that they mean them no harm.
Couple that with the no holds barred exhorting at the mosques that those who
rejected Muslim Brotherhood would not go to heaven but to hell, the MB managed
to easily win the election to emerge with the largest number of seats.
The bad news is: will they remain moderate forever as they promise to mean no
harm to anybody? It remains to be seen. But judging by their behavior and
statements of late, eventhough there are more elections to be run and won,
probably not.
Already; they said they would become close to Iran; and may abrogate the peace
treaty with Israel.
A lot people are naive, to say the least, to think that by supporting the Arab
Spring and throwing out all dictators we are going to earn our places in the
good books of these protesters or these countries once they have achieved
their goals.
Chances are, these folks have no gratitude. All these people need is a mistake
by us the west and I won't be surprised if they start shouting "Death to
America" again!
Just look at how the victorious Libyan rebels repaid the west after we spent
billions to assist them in ousting Qaddafi?
They dishonored and abused the Western soldiers's graves for no reason. These
soldiers for cyring out loud were dead a long time. What have they done to
anger these rebels? Even Qaddafi showed respect by not disturbing these
graves.
And, what's more, so soon after they gained power with our help (NATO all-out
bombing).
comment author avatar
The people of Egypt who number more than 80 millions are disillusioned after
they had been taken for a ride by the 'people of Egypt' who numbered a mere
few hundred thousands, and vented their anger at the usurping youths by
snubbing them at the referendum and the first post-Mubarak election.
Although the Muslim Brotherhood did well, or better than expected, it didn't
mean the Egyptian people who are mostly secular prefer the MB but they had no
choice, as they had observed the behaviors of the revolutionary protesters
they cannot be trusted.
The MB, on the contrary, in the meantime had been working hard to fool the
Egyptians, including the coptic Christians, that they mean them no harm.
Couple that with the no holds barred exhorting at the mosques that those who
rejected Muslim Brotherhood would not go to heaven but to hell, the MB managed
to easily win the election to emerge with the largest number of seats.
The bad news is: will they remain moderate forever as they promise to mean no
harm to anybody? It remains to be seen. But judging by their behavior and
statements of late, eventhough there are more elections to be run and won,
probably not.
Already; they said they would become close to Iran; and may abrogate the peace
treaty with Israel.
A lot people are naive, to say the least, to think that by supporting the Arab
Spring and throwing out all dictators we are going to earn our places in the
good books of these protesters or these countries once they have achieved
their goals.
Chances are, these folks have no gratitude. All these people need is a mistake
by us the west and I won't be surprised if they start shouting "Death to
America" again!
Just look at how the victorious Libyan rebels repaid the west after we spent
billions to assist them in ousting Qaddafi?
They dishonored and abused the Western soldiers's graves for no reason. These
soldiers for cyring out loud were dead a long time. What have they done to
anger these rebels? Even Qaddafi showed respect by not disturbing these
graves.
And, what's more, so soon after they gained power with our help (NATO all-out
bombing).
0SHARE
0SHARE
YOUR COMMENT:
© 2005-2017 NBC Ne
The Palestinians are smart people too; they know the Israelis are here to
0SHARE
YOUR COMMENT:
© 2005-2017 NBC Ne
The Palestinians are smart people too; they know the Israelis are here to
stay; so the sooner they accept that the better
By Obama&HisLegacy
Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:19 AM
historyjewsacceptpalestinians-smart-peoplelive-in-peace-and-harmony
DISCUSS: 0 2 !
Christian Soldier-3554481, with 14Reply ,
Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:19 AM
historyjewsacceptpalestinians-smart-peoplelive-in-peace-and-harmony
DISCUSS: 0 2 !
Christian Soldier-3554481, with 14Reply ,
You're not surprised, are you? Me, I have been dreading this day will come;
it's here!
When I read President Obama himself made it his business to grapple with this
mayhem, I am not surprised, too. He's partly to blame.It took a lot to come to
this. This didn't happen by accident (i.e. as a result of Israeli shooting
dead of Egyptian soldiers); it happened because unseen hands are at play. They
lurk behind the scene, causing chaos and destruction at no cost to themselves;
if the demonstrators (their tools) get burned it doesn't matter to them or
hurt their reputation (see, we are not involved); but if everything goes well,
well, like the Tahrir Square revolution, they are the first to emerge (from
nowhere) to claim the credit.
After Mubarak gone they own everything; the credit for killing the Christians,
Israeli soldiers, breaching Israeli fences, borders in Sinai; for
demonstrating over a Christian woman's alleged conversion to Islam but
allegedly prevented from practicing Islam; for sabotaging the gas pipeline
from Egypt to Israel; for forcing the Egyptian authorities to reopen the Rafa
crossing between Israel and Egypt; for instigating the euphoric Egyptian
demonstrators to constantly demand the abrogation of the Israeli-Egyptian
Peace Treaty (which has always been their wish to make it happen but wants to
avoid being blamed at the same time); for instigating the ignorant Egyptians
to forever demand more or heavier punishment for those associated with former
president Mubarak and last, not necessarily the last, the storming of the
Israeli embassy.
I think you all know what I am talking about.Since the emergence of Barrack
Hussein Obama as president of the only super power of the planet, the Muslim
Brotherhood never had it so good. Their way to success to realize their dream
of turning Egypt into a theocratic state with them as the supreme rulers was
paved and made happened by none other than President Obama.
From day one, after shoving a former First Lady to fall by the wayside and
claiming the highest office of the world, he made clear he wanted to help
Muslims (to understand the West or non-Muslims better).
He led by example in praising the Islamic faith at every opportunity and
proclaiming (to the West) Islam is a peaceful religion - there's no need to
fear it.
And if anyone wants to discredit or harm Islam, he makes clear he will be in
their way. During the Koran burning controversy, he or his right-hand men,
made short work of the priest, Pastor Jones, who claimed to obey God's signs
asking him to burn the Koran books. From Secretary of Defense to Chairman of
the Joint Chief of Staff, not to mention Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
all went berserk against the poor pastor. Mr. Jones didn't expect such a
frenzy from fellow Christians. Obama called together the best brains like he
did when set about to wrest the Democratic presidential nomination from
Hillary Clinton (who thought of herself as a shoo-in in the contest),
including the MSNBC talk-show hosts, of course.
It was decided to use a journalist to dig up dirt in Germany to discredit
Pastor Jones similar to what happened to Sarah Palin when a cooperative
journalist Katie Couric allowed herself to be used to destroy a promising
career of the former Governor of Alaska. It's not known if John McCain's
presidential running mate had fully recovered from that scheme. But Father
Jones was completely destroyed socially, religiously, politically and
financially. First, he's conned into agreeing to not ever burn the Koran. Then
began a systematic destruction of the man's character, everything; he first
lost the mortgage to the land on which the Dove World church stood. They
didn't stop until he was jailed!
This is what you get if you defy the president of the United States. Just
imagine, for just threatening to burn the Koran, a man lost his freedom -
everything. But I guess it's alright for a Muslim to burn, not just threaten
to burn, a bible. No one will even bother with it, presumably. President Obama
will ignores it completely. Even if he's forced to response, he can only
say:..incomprehensible"like when he commented on the Fort Hoot massacre by
Major Nidal Hassan, during the memorial service for the victims who,
ironically, were all Hassan's own comrades).
This illustrated an interesting point: even in America, the world' strongest
country, the Muslims are winning or on their way (just like in England, where
the majority Christians can't even put up Christmas trees in public places for
fear of offending the Muslims.
The population of Muslims in America is so tiny if anywhere else in the world
they will be completely ignored. But not in the land of political correctness.
With a president who was elected due to political correctness, who preaches
and practices political correctness.
When Senator Barrack Obama ran for president against what seemed
insurmountable odds, at first, he quickly became the darling of Americans -
whites, Hispanics, Asians - because he's black, first ever black, with a white
mother thrown it, to emerge as capable of wresting the presidency from white
candidates. Coupled with his shrewdness in hitting the right button, or shall
we say employing the right people (white people); he got the endorsement of
most, if not all, prominent Americans -- from Senator Edward Kennedy to Bill
Richardson. He was unstoppable. But I would like to add a little qualification
if you don't mind. There 's no doubt Obama was a rare talent indeed but,
without the Guinness-Word-Record-winning efforts of the MSNBC talk-show hosts
and numerous writers, columnists and university professors, to name a few, who
gave their all to help, Obama would not be where he was for the last 3 years,
or shall we say Obama would be lucky to be a second-term senator for
Illinois.
It was amazing what a popular president can do; what the Muslims have become;
what a 24/7 soundbite can achieve.
Back to mayhem in post-Mubarak Egypt. What happened in Egypt can happen
anywhere in a Muslim country. Protesting or demonstrating can happen even over
a insignificant matter; it's as if second nature to Muslims. And there are a
lot of unseen hands looking out for opportunity to exploit them, stir up
things.
It's ridiculous for the Egyptians to keep protesting against the Israeli
killing of the 5 Egyptians soldiers, by accident. The trouble emanated from
the Egyptian side, probably planned and executed for a purpose. These
'innocent' bystanders were roped in to cause chaos, to hem in the Jewish state
which was the real intention. It was wise of the Jews to be forthcoming and
not arrogant and apologized. It won't stop the agitation but at least it
reduces the reason to agitate among the ordinary people.
It can be said the Jewish leadership showed a remarkable wisdom which should
be emulated by other leaders the world over.
It's amazing; the Israelis are not only good at fighting wars, inventing
state-of-the-art technology the world can't do without, it's also good at
deciding what benefits them.
There's no doubt the way they 're going about doing things, one day they can
realize their dream of living in peace and harmony with the Palestinians in
particulars and the Arabs in the Middle East in general. There would come a
time when both sides would realize a lot to gain from being friends nothing
for being enemies. The Palestinians, don't underestimate them, are smart
people too. They know Israel is here to stay; the sooner they accept that the
better for all concerned.
Do you wish to know more?
Is Qaddafi finished?
By Obama&HisLegacy
Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:07 AM
obamaworld-newscollege-recordssecond-bookcol-qaddafileaving-libyapummelled-
fromall-sidesonly-talent
DISCUSS: 4 1 !
You all are wrong to gloat over a man's misfortune
You all are wrong to gloat over the misfortune of Col. Qaddafi. He did us no
harm, meant no harm to anybody. He may be staring at defeat but, unlike us, he
still could walk tall. He didn't use force (like former president of Syria
did) to destroy his enemies.
His army may have fired on the few hundreds demonstrators early on, but that
was to be expected of any leaders the world over; they have the right to
restore order. The Thai government did far worse than Qaddafi when it sent in
the army to shoot to kill women and children, and yet the US or President
Obama was silent. Hiatus!
We should not take pride in our victory when that victory was achieved through
dubious or unscrupulous means.
Col. Qaddafi could be compared to a feared wrestler in a ring full of
opponents all out to do him in. Not only that, one of his hand was tied behind
his back!
And before you heap praises on President Obama, who got elected as President
of the United States through fraud (he didn't use his capabilities to contrast
with his opponents' but instead used dirty tactics to undermine and win),
listen to this: you all who praised Obama for getting Osama, Libya and Syria
are simple people; your minds are limited to being just that: simple. You
believe whatever you're told. Just imagine you applauded President Obama for
prevailing over Col. Qaddafi. Your posts make me want to puke. You all had the
audacity to opine that President Obama must have made a right decision for for
bringing the Libyan strongman to his knees. It's still too early to say what
US officials said about the Col. planning to flee LIbya and go into exile in
Tunisia was true or false, but even if it was true I don's think he's anything
to be ashamed of; he was pummelled from the top, bottom and all sides round
the clock, remember? Libya was attacked by ten NATO countries -- even one of
which is stronger than tiny Libya -- you hear, and you all praised Obama for a
job well-done?
As for getting Osama, even if it was not Obama who was president when the
AlQaeda leader was killed, the killing would be done anyway. It just happened
during Obama's watch. But I wouldn't be surprized for him to demand the Navy
Zeals say it was Obama who planned everything, not the CIA, FBI or our
intelligence agencies, who had been at it for years, even, in fact, since
Bush's presidency.
AlQaeda leader was killed, the killing would be done anyway. It just happened
during Obama's watch. But I wouldn't be surprized for him to demand the Navy
Zeals say it was Obama who planned everything, not the CIA, FBI or our
intelligence agencies, who had been at it for years, even, in fact, since
Bush's presidency.
Let's wait and see if President Obama finds Syrian president's case as
'doable' as Libya's Qaddafi. Let's see if he goes on to lead another coalition
of the willing to establish a no-fly zone and makes mince-meat of the Syrian
army. Let's see if he cowardly makes use of Saudi Arabia - the sworn enemy of
Iran and, by extension, Syria - to weaken President Bashar (just like he
employed MSNBC talk show hosts and other analysts to do Hillary Clinton, John
McCain and Sarah Palin in during the 2008 presidential election). And let's
wait for when Iran finally comes out with a claim that, finally, it has the
qualification to join the nuclear club (after, of course, having been left
alone to pursue its ambition to fruition by none other than Obama
himself).
May be this is part of the plan by President Obama; draws attention away from
Iran's nuclear works and, once Iran informs him that they are done refining
and all, Obama turns around and resume negotiation or quarrelling with Iran
over its nuclear ambitions.
Thus a win-win situation for both sides; Iran achieves its ambition of
mastering nuclear technology, could make a nuclear bomb anytime it wishes,
while President Obama doesn't get blamed for allowing Iran a free hand!
If you all who buy Obama's snake oil whether it does any good or not, think
you all know Obama you are all wrong.
Until today he steadfastly refused to reveal his college records although many
doubted his education and rightly demanded to see proof. I have no doubt he
will one day reveal his education records after he's done getting everything
or every body in order -- just like how he revealed his longform birth
certificate!
Remember how he managed to publish his first book? Everybody knew he's author
of only the second book which reflected his true ability(education).
Go ahead, if you will, continue to heap praises on President Obama, a first-
term senator who made it,whose only talent was to fool people; people like
many writers posting on this discussion.
Well-done! Keep up the good work!
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
The family's of 259 men, women and children who died in the Lockerbie bombing
might take issue with that statement.
Or the families of victims from the Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro...
Or the families of the victims of the bombings of the airports in Rome and
Vienna that killed 20...
Vladimir Putin is a Wimp commented Aug 21, 2011
Chris-735081
The family's of 259 men, women and children who died in the Lockerbie bombing
might take issue with that statement, you say?
Well; may be they would; may be they wouldn't.
May be they have got enough compensation from the col. so they left him very
much alone after getting their hands...
›
Obama&HisLegacy commented Nov 10, 2011
Bush calls White House. Wants to know if Obama would like to borrow his
banner.
POTUS declines offer.
Bush calls White House. Wants to know if Obama would like to borrow his
banner.
POTUS declines offer.
ScienceGuy57 commented Aug 22, 2011
The European aggression only exists due to the Libyan oil. That is the only
reason they are trying to overthrow the Libyan government.
Iran has the right to build those weapons for self-defense.
›
Diamond Tiara commented Aug 21, 2011
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Diamond TiaraAug 21, 2011
#1
The European aggression only exists due to the Libyan oil. That is the only
reason they are trying to overthrow the Libyan government.
And let's wait for when Iran finally comes out with a claim that, finally, it
has the qualification to join the nuclear club
Iran has the right to build those weapons for self-defense.
0SHAREREPORT
Vladimir Putin is a WimpAug 21, 2011
The European aggression only exists due to the Libyan oil. That is the only
reason they are trying to overthrow the Libyan government.
And let's wait for when Iran finally comes out with a claim that, finally, it
has the qualification to join the nuclear club
Iran has the right to build those weapons for self-defense.
0SHAREREPORT
Vladimir Putin is a WimpAug 21, 2011
#2
He did us no harm, meant no harm to anybody.
The family's of 259 men, women and children who died in the Lockerbie bombing
might take issue with that statement.
Or the families of victims from the Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro...
Or the families of the victims of the bombings of the airports in Rome and
Vienna that killed 20 people including Americans in 1985....
Or the families of the victims of the La Belle Discotheque bombing in 1986...
Or the families of the three Americans working in Beirut who were shot to
death by Gadhafis men in 1986...
Nobody with any memory for history is going to believe that Gadhafi is
rehabilitated or even capable of rehabilitation. He gave that released
Lockerbie bomber a hero's welcome when he got back to Libya; ticker tape
parade included.
No way am I going to forget that.
Gadhafi has got to go.
He did us no harm, meant no harm to anybody.
The family's of 259 men, women and children who died in the Lockerbie bombing
might take issue with that statement.
Or the families of victims from the Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro...
Or the families of the victims of the bombings of the airports in Rome and
Vienna that killed 20 people including Americans in 1985....
Or the families of the victims of the La Belle Discotheque bombing in 1986...
Or the families of the three Americans working in Beirut who were shot to
death by Gadhafis men in 1986...
Nobody with any memory for history is going to believe that Gadhafi is
rehabilitated or even capable of rehabilitation. He gave that released
Lockerbie bomber a hero's welcome when he got back to Libya; ticker tape
parade included.
No way am I going to forget that.
Gadhafi has got to go.
2SHAREREPORT
ScienceGuy57Aug 22, 2011
#3
ScienceGuy57Aug 22, 2011
#3
Bush calls White House. Wants to know if Obama would like to borrow his
banner.
POTUS declines offer.
0SHAREREPORT
Obama&HisLegacyAUTHORNov 10, 2011
#4
Chris-735081
The family's of 259 men, women and children who died in the Lockerbie bombing
might take issue with that statement, you say?
Well; may be they would; may be they wouldn't.
May be they have got enough compensation from the col. so they left him very
much alone after getting their hands in his cookie jar. These families became
silent as if they had lost their ability to speak. May be they considered it
as a dream so they pads no further attention to it (the Lockerbie incident)?
May be these families didn't care any more ..who knows?
Chris-735081
The family's of 259 men, women and children who died in the Lockerbie bombing
might take issue with that statement, you say?
Well; may be they would; may be they wouldn't.
May be they have got enough compensation from the col. so they left him very
much alone after getting their hands in his cookie jar. These families became
silent as if they had lost their ability to speak. May be they considered it
as a dream so they pads no further attention to it (the Lockerbie incident)?
May be these families didn't care any more ..who knows?
When Qaddafi renounced his ambition to WMD project and listened to former
President Bush to cooperate in fighting against AlQaeda, and he was again
accepted back as a friend of the West, and warmly embraced in every capitals
until only recently, nobody seemed to hold the Lockerbie downing of PanAm
flight against him. They seemed to like him again. He's no more a devil; a
friend of the West, if you will.
President Bush to cooperate in fighting against AlQaeda, and he was again
accepted back as a friend of the West, and warmly embraced in every capitals
until only recently, nobody seemed to hold the Lockerbie downing of PanAm
flight against him. They seemed to like him again. He's no more a devil; a
friend of the West, if you will.
Even our secretary of state Hillary Clinton was full of praise for one of
Qaddafi's sons, if I am not mistaken, and of course the Qaddafi family, until,
I repeat, until he announced he wanted to give more contracts to the Chinese
and Russians; and was going to transfer funds from French banks to other
countries' banks. So the Europeans were beside themselves with worry and
anger. And the rest, as they say, was history.
Qaddafi's sons, if I am not mistaken, and of course the Qaddafi family, until,
I repeat, until he announced he wanted to give more contracts to the Chinese
and Russians; and was going to transfer funds from French banks to other
countries' banks. So the Europeans were beside themselves with worry and
anger. And the rest, as they say, was history.
The French president knew his political fortune was declining even without the
collapse of most of French financial institutions which were inevitable due to
the large sum involved on his watch; while David Cameron was eager to stamp
his mark on the UK's political scene by waging a war against a tiny 6-
million-population country which he knew he couldn't lose.
He was desperate to show the British people they erred in not electing him to
be their prime minister (Cameron's Conservatives Party fought to a draw with
the Labor party; so could form the government only with the help of the
Liberals).
collapse of most of French financial institutions which were inevitable due to
the large sum involved on his watch; while David Cameron was eager to stamp
his mark on the UK's political scene by waging a war against a tiny 6-
million-population country which he knew he couldn't lose.
He was desperate to show the British people they erred in not electing him to
be their prime minister (Cameron's Conservatives Party fought to a draw with
the Labor party; so could form the government only with the help of the
Liberals).
As a unpopularly elected leader - premier, he had no right to wage war against
a sovereign country on behalf of Britain with reason.
a sovereign country on behalf of Britain with reason.
These western powers had no right to do what they did: caused the death of
thousands of Libyans - both innocent and guilty.
thousands of Libyans - both innocent and guilty.
As regards your list of bombings that you indignantly blamed on the Col., what
about President Reagan bombing of his tent and killing his daughter.
When you're engaged in wars, you may say, anything goes, right? But, by the
way, do you have proof that Qaddafi ordered those acts to be committed? I know
you don't. You just followed what the western press wanted you to follow.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe that after about 18,000 or more sorties of
round-the-clock bombing employing not rocks or stones but the most modern high
explosive munitions ever made, nobody or few Libyans had died as a result? The
western press said so. Have you ever heard a falling coconut could kill a
person? So, even if NATO were to load their planes with rocks and stones and
unload them on to the town and cities and villages full of people 24/7 over,
say, six months lots of people will die; and did. In fact, these martyred
Libyans didn't have to die if not for the weird sense of justice. Ah, they
could not sit by while Col. Qaddafi terrorized a few hundreds of his own
people. But at the same time they saw nothing wrong with the Thai prime
minister Abhisit Vejjajiva ordering the Thai army to fire on unarmed women and
children in Bangkok recently. As you can remember, not a sound escaped
President Obama's lips. Why? Because they are hypocrites. That's what they
are.
about President Reagan bombing of his tent and killing his daughter.
When you're engaged in wars, you may say, anything goes, right? But, by the
way, do you have proof that Qaddafi ordered those acts to be committed? I know
you don't. You just followed what the western press wanted you to follow.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe that after about 18,000 or more sorties of
round-the-clock bombing employing not rocks or stones but the most modern high
explosive munitions ever made, nobody or few Libyans had died as a result? The
western press said so. Have you ever heard a falling coconut could kill a
person? So, even if NATO were to load their planes with rocks and stones and
unload them on to the town and cities and villages full of people 24/7 over,
say, six months lots of people will die; and did. In fact, these martyred
Libyans didn't have to die if not for the weird sense of justice. Ah, they
could not sit by while Col. Qaddafi terrorized a few hundreds of his own
people. But at the same time they saw nothing wrong with the Thai prime
minister Abhisit Vejjajiva ordering the Thai army to fire on unarmed women and
children in Bangkok recently. As you can remember, not a sound escaped
President Obama's lips. Why? Because they are hypocrites. That's what they
are.
They committed murders and we're praising them.
These leaders suck; they are no better than Qaddafi. Qaddafi may be presumed
to do those bad things you just listed, but he's still entitled to the benefit
of the doubt of his involvement. But for these leaders, led by President
Obama, there was no doubt. They held the smoking gun, if you will. They didn't
only commit murders they were seen committing them!
These leaders suck; they are no better than Qaddafi. Qaddafi may be presumed
to do those bad things you just listed, but he's still entitled to the benefit
of the doubt of his involvement. But for these leaders, led by President
Obama, there was no doubt. They held the smoking gun, if you will. They didn't
only commit murders they were seen committing them!
Do you wish to know more?
Unbridled quest for power or wealth often leads to nowhere but back to
square one, if lucky, or worse: ruin.
By Obama&HisLegacy
Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:50 AM
rupert-murdochworld-newsrivalsnews-of-he-worldstep-on-people-toes
DISCUSS: 2 4 !
History is replete with examples of greed and of the follies in the pursuit of
same. And history has always been fair to all players. If you scew up, you get
burned.
Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:50 AM
rupert-murdochworld-newsrivalsnews-of-he-worldstep-on-people-toes
DISCUSS: 2 4 !
History is replete with examples of greed and of the follies in the pursuit of
same. And history has always been fair to all players. If you scew up, you get
burned.
Murdoch could have acquired a few newspapers or tabloids and stop right there.
If all he wants is to fulfil his boyhood dream of being a journalist, or chief
of journalists, to provide news to the world what is wrong with owning just a
few newspapers or periodicals? Even if he wants to cut corners by acquiring a
top news organization, like the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, is
fine, by all means -- but that's it.
It increasingly looks like this is not the case. It increasingly looks like he
lives only to acquire wealth and the power that comes from it, at all costs.
Journalism to him is just a vehicle -- a familiar vehicle -- towards those
ends; it has nothing to do with love of journalism that many people have
thought of when Rupert Murdoch's name is mentioned.
lives only to acquire wealth and the power that comes from it, at all costs.
Journalism to him is just a vehicle -- a familiar vehicle -- towards those
ends; it has nothing to do with love of journalism that many people have
thought of when Rupert Murdoch's name is mentioned.
He is insane with this desire to outdo his rivals and dominate them all. He
has stopped at nothing to make sure he realizes his dream (of being recognized
as the head of the greatest news empire of all time?).
He is as smart as he is ruthless.
when it comes to dealing with people who could disturb his plan, people like
the Chinese leaders he chooses to be non-confrontational. For example, when a
story of Chris Patten, the last long serving governor of Hong Kong
(effectively the story of the long British rule of its last colony) was
supposed to be published, he didn't want to risk angrying the Chinese for many
reasons and so shot down the idea.
Mudoch thought (wrongly) by treading carefully, he can avoid pitfals; but he
forgot one thing: News Corp is not a one-man show thing.
The more people he hires the more his company grows, but..also the more
chances for things to go wrong, terribly wrong.
His employees are just ordinary human beings. They have their own feelings
about how things should be run; dreams to realize or desires to sabotage or
take revenge.
When the phone-hacking scandal erupted, people thought Murdoch went to far
already; but did he?
This is an example of how you can own all but not control all. Day to day
operations are left to the editors or chief editors to do as they please --
and, who knows, they may be pleased to see News of The World, for example,
fold up, for a reason, or even want to pursue their personal agendas. The
phone-hacking candals didn't happen by accident or an isolated incident.
operations are left to the editors or chief editors to do as they please --
and, who knows, they may be pleased to see News of The World, for example,
fold up, for a reason, or even want to pursue their personal agendas. The
phone-hacking candals didn't happen by accident or an isolated incident.
It could be just the tip of the iceberg./div>
Murdoch can't posibly remember how many toes he has stepped on; these people
may now be waiting to have their revenge; some may be at work right now
conspiring to bring him or News Corps down; his rivals will come up with
speculations or outright accusations Murdoch has done this or that, to do him
in, and the regulating agencies or authorities swooped in.
For Murdoch, the closure of the News of the World the scandals and all could
turn out to be just a temporary setback./div>
For News Corp's sakes, let us hope that will be the case.
But if he keeps doing it (targets rival news organizations for takeover), he
will end up stepping on too many toes for his own good.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
2 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Joe-1680982Jul 16, 2011
#1
“He is insane with this desire to outdo his rivals and dominate them all.”
“Murdoch can't posibly remember how many toes he has stepped on; these people
may now be waiting to have their revenge… …his rivals…the regulating agencies
or authorities...”
Just goes to show…the same people you meet on the way up, you meet on the way
down.
You reap what you sow…
2SHAREREPORT
The Real McCoy Jack WagonOct 13, 2013
#2
Why, spot on... if I may say so. Look where's Murdoch now. But he was still
lucky, however; he lost only his billions and some pride, not freedom (if the
authrities put him behind bars)!
Deterrent and...is the only way for Israel!/div>
By Obama&HisLegacy
Sun Jun 5, 2011 11:25 PM
world-newsgovernmentpalestinianslebanonfeatsyrianrational1967deterrent
DISCUSS: 4 2 !
It's touch & go situation for the Israeli people.
Sun Jun 5, 2011 11:25 PM
world-newsgovernmentpalestinianslebanonfeatsyrianrational1967deterrent
DISCUSS: 4 2 !
It's touch & go situation for the Israeli people.
One mistake and they will regret forever; the Palestinians want to become we-
toos like the Egyptians, the Libyans, the Shia groups in Bahrain and other
Gulf Cooperation countries, and the latest the Syrians. These demonstrators
openly said they're inspired by the ease with which the Arab (strongmen)
leaders were toppled. They reasoned -- if Mubarak could be sent packing (like
a piece of cake), why should they be satisfied with reforms or concessions?
They want the ultimate prize: power for themselves. Forget about election. Why
should they bother with election? How are they supposed to know if they will
do well in future elections. They don't want to gamble (with their chances to
usurp power from President Bashar). They want to take his place, at all
cost.
The West's naive if they thought by supporting the uprisings they could usher
in a new era of democratic governments that would be better than the ones they
replaced. They're naive to think the new people at the helm of Syria would be
grateful for the help just rendered; they are still members of the Muslim
Brotherhood, and the West remain non-believers. (And infidels must be killed
when their usefulness have expired and as an obligation to their prophet). The
West were naive if they got rid of Qaddafi and installed the Benghazi
headquartered rebels as the government for all Libya and thought they did the
Libyans a good turn and patted themselves in the backs. They should look at
the turns of events in Egypt. Did they expect the post-Mubarak government to
throw open the Rafah crossing which would facilitate Iranian arms shipments to
Hamas, whose objective in life is to destroy the Jewish state? Did they
anticipate the Egyptian government being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood
(courtesy of none other than President Obama himself, of course) and turning
away from being western-friendly to Iranian influence? Did they foresee the
abrogation of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty? By threatening to join the Shia
Iranian's orbit, the Egyptians showed the West, especially the US, a
foretaste of what to come. Apparently the billions that Washington provided,
and recently suggested could be reviewed, mean little to the post-Mubarak
leadership. When the Iranians asked for permission for its warships to sail
through the Suez Canal, which the Egyptian military government approved, the
Iranian government not so much as wanted to sail through the canal on their
way to threaten anybody, but just to test the water.
During President Mubarak's rule, Egypt would never do anything that could
displease the White-house, or harm American interests.
Despite the aid still flowing, and the generals had not indicated openly they
wanted to distance themselves from Washington, the Egyptian government run by
quite a few of former president's opponents, had become less
predictable.
The Rafah crossing opening was just one of the many things the Egyptians could
and would do -- if only to prove Egypt had changed (from a stooge of United
States to an independent sovereign state like Col. Qaddafi's Libya).
In the recent referendum, the Muslim Brotherhood, who campaigned for a "Yes"
for the new constitution while the Cairo demonstrators asked the Egyptian
voters to vote a "No", beat the internet savvy youths hands-down. This proved
that the MB, as they are also called, had always been the choice of the
Egyptian people (and also debunked the former Google executive and his Tahrir
square demonstrators' claims they were the Strong>Egyptian people or
represented the Egyptian people).
If not for the open support of the US president --who arm-twisted President
Mubarak as well as the military -- they would never emerge victorious but
instead end up being crushed.
After so much sweat and bloodshed they sacrificed, all they got to show
was..."We started the revolution; we worked hard and we overthrew President
Hosni Mubarak!" But, President Mubarak agreed to step down voluntarily, for
crying out loud! The Egyptian president acted courageously and unselfishly to
protect the interests of the Egyptian people.
In return look what he had got? Humiliation! Hounded like a criminal; what he
had done for the Egyptian people all forgotten. Just like that. They had
reneged on their words to offer him immunity from prosecution. Surely there
must have been some agreement. When President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen wa
asked to step down recently, the first thing they offered him was free from
any prosecution.
But after what happened to Mubarak, Saleh could be forgiven for being
cautious. So far there was no news about whether he agreed to resign as asked.
He could also be eying the way the king of Bahrain managed to solve his
kingdom's recent upheaval, without having to concede much.C
At the height of the Shia uprising, seen as Iran's bold attempt to spread its
influence in Bahrain in order to eventually topple the Sunni king. the ruler
wisely asked Saudi Arabia for help. Within a few days the uprising was
crushed.
That's how the Obama-inspired Arab spring came to a halt.
In fact, it was Col. Qaddafi who snuffed out the life of the Arab spring; he
bucked the trends. No matter what the ten western powers threw at him, he
stubbornly stood his ground.
the-clock, unrestrained bombing of even his tent, NATO couldn't subdue one
man. And he's not fighting back!
Never before in the history of conflict, had so many countries (10) joined
hands to victimize one, small country; so small it was no match for even one
of them. And what a shame, this tiny Libya posed no harm whatsoever to them?
No doubt, these ten countries and their people will have to live with shame
for eternity for the sins of their leaders.
But the good news is, with their confidence taking a beating in Libya, it's
unlikely President Obama and his European clique will embark on another
venture any time soon. According to the latest news, they were in favor of
allowing President Bashar to stay in power.
So, in the end, it all came down to deterrent. Might is right. If you're weak,
like Mubarak and Qaddafi, trouble follows every where.
While Saudi Arabia was not spared the effect of the Arab spring, there was
never at any time a danger that it might be brought to its knees like Yemen,
because of its strength, resources and decisive action.
It more than qualifies to be the leader the Gulf Cooperation Countries. It
deters.
So far so good for Saudis, Iran was thwarted, hopefully for good; they got the
money to pay the Egyptian generals in case the US makes good its threat to
review its annual aid to Egypt; Bahrain was saved in time; everything had
returned to normal, for now.
But, on hindsight what exactly the so-called Arab Spring would bring (boon or
bust) to us, the Arabs themselves, or the world, we don't know. May be
President Obama knows (knew) something we don't know? After all, it's his own
idea. I say maybe, because it right now looks like Obama's caught flatfooted
himself. I believe he though it would be a piece of cake to take out Qaddafi
(he wasn't as strong as he used to be as the height of his terrorism-exporting
spree). With air force reduced to less than half with aging aircraft and
obsolete Russian SAM's, ..it was so tempting!
But he didn't expect the Col. to last this long, not with all the combined
might of ten western powers brandishing new state-of-the-art fighter-bombers
brought to bear on him round the clock. The lucky son-of-the-bitch is thumbing
his nose at the Rafael and Typhoons, not mention the F-15s one of which went
down harmlessly in Eastern Libya earlier, gleaming fighters.
It was a time when the western powers never had so good; they are master of
the skies; they bomb round the clock if they wish, using cluster bombs if they
like; or use Apache gunships (which they're considering), or even deploy boots
on the ground if they wish. And absolutely nobody can do anything about. It
was a time of high adventure. Time to test their fighter planes. After all,
that this intervention was all about. Showcase new weapons (fighters or
fighter-bombers).
During the 1967 six-day war, Israel used the French Mirages to destroy the
Arab air forces and, later, armies.
In the aftermath of the war, the Mirages were snapped up like buying
televisions. Hot cakes. Sold out. The French (company) never had so good.
Apparently, the present president was looking to recoup this glory for France
(with an eye to bolster his declining poilitical fortune) but never expected
to get bogged down. This time the maker of Rafale fighters expected the worst
(definitely not laughing all the way to the bank).
As for the British, the stakes were not that high. The Typhoons are jointly-
produced by many European countries; benefits, if any, were not theirs,
alone.
However, to their credit, all seemed to be quiet at the British and French
fronts.
The British defense secretary, William Hague and General Rhcard Dannat, if I'm
not mistaken, step forward to say something but nothing new occasionally;
while the French president had lost his speech (ability) altogether.
President Nicholas Sarkozy had none to thank (or curse) for other than the
Jewish Poet Professor Henri-Levy (a Jew on the crusade to save the asses of
Muslims, who ironically wish for only death for all Jews), who talked him (the
president of France) in taking up the cause of Benghazi rebels.
The world, it seems, was full of naive people who'd be misled to believe
anything or do anything. They have no thinking caps. The American people are
(were) such people. How on earth did they allow themselves to be misled (by
talkshow hosts and other media people) to elect a man (a black man at that) to
the highest office in the land without caring whether or not he qualified for
that coveted job: President of The United States of America? Didn't they
know, or didn't they care, that this man knew nothing about running a
business, let alone running the government of the world's sole superpower.
Were they caught up in the euphoria of hyping from the man and his cahoots
that all rational and check and balance instincts were ignored? Well, to make
mistakes -- and electing Barack Obama to the Whitehouse was definitely a
mistake -- is human; we all make mistakes at one time or other. But the beauty
is that we can correct them, after we realize what we have done. Undo what is
undesirable.
Back to the Israeli battle against Palestinians trying to force their way in
from Syria (thankfully the Lebanese government, to its credit, saw the danger
of peaceful protest escalating to something catastrophic and had acted
appropriately. Thank you, the Lebanese government).
The Israeli government must never allow even one concession, however trivial,
to the invading mobs, for they will be emboldened; so the more concession they
can extract they more they hope to extract. Kill the expectation or hope of
breaching the fencing in the bud. Period. The surest way of putting the death
knell on the Jewish state was to agree under the pressure from the spineless
Europeans to sit down and talk with the mobs with a view to get them to stop.
Who says they want to stop? President Bashar Al-Assad found that out to his
cost. Al-Assad's concession kindled more demands for more concessions. In the
end the president saw the slippery road and began cracking down. It remains to
be seen if he acted too late. Now the battle cries are.."The people want to
bring down the regime!" Didn't they chant only recently.."The people want more
freedom, jobs and higher pays." Next, they may not be satisfied with Al-
Assad's resignation, but may even want his head.
For the Israelis, there is no substitute for deterrent..(and IDF). They can
hope to survive only if they are ever ready to repeat their feat of 1967. Some
people will never stop thinking of or trying to repeat what they tried in
1967; someones like Hamas people.
In short, it must deter. Deter by showing them that Israel can destroy them,
if need be.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
4 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
That's a neat rationalization. The right-wing, fascists in Israel want all the
land. The people of Palestine will need die or be expelled to foreign lands.
In the end the only authority is a moral authority. Israel, led by fascists,
has abandoned that moral authority. They will ensure...
Better Careful commented Jun 6, 2011
The Palestinians left of their own accord after being told to by the
surrounding arab nations that ganged up on Israel in 67. The Israelis wanted
them to stay. They bet on the wrong horse. But instead of paying the bookie
they ran. Now years later its like they're going to the bookie and...
lastone commented Jun 6, 2011
All well said. I couldn't do better. I respect all views. For or against. Good
show.
SyriaInTurmoil commented Jun 27, 2013
lastone
I agree with you. Israel almost could not make in '67. They were outgunned
and had to come up with something, and fast, to counter Arabs' 13 armies (of
various sizes) who planned and launched their attacks with only one goal:
drive the Jews into the sea.
Luckily they prevailed.
Obama&HisLegacy commented Jul 3, 2011
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Better CarefulJun 6, 2011
#1
That's a neat rationalization. The right-wing, fascists in Israel want all the
land. The people of Palestine will need die or be expelled to foreign lands.
In the end the only authority is a moral authority. Israel, led by fascists,
has abandoned that moral authority. They will ensure Israel suffers the
consequences of their actions, because authoritarians disavow accountability
and insist that it's always others who suffer for them.
Up with democracy. Down with fascism.
That's a neat rationalization. The right-wing, fascists in Israel want all the
land. The people of Palestine will need die or be expelled to foreign lands.
In the end the only authority is a moral authority. Israel, led by fascists,
has abandoned that moral authority. They will ensure Israel suffers the
consequences of their actions, because authoritarians disavow accountability
and insist that it's always others who suffer for them.
Up with democracy. Down with fascism.
C
3SHAREREPORT
lastoneJun 6, 2011
lastoneJun 6, 2011
#2
The Palestinians left of their own accord after being told to by the
surrounding arab nations that ganged up on Israel in 67. The Israelis wanted
them to stay. They bet on the wrong horse. But instead of paying the bookie
they ran. Now years later its like they're going to the bookie and saying,
'that horse that one, we dont recognise it. Its not really a horse so our
horse won, you pay us.' They'd be lucking to be walking after doing something
so damn moronic.
The Palestinians left of their own accord after being told to by the
surrounding arab nations that ganged up on Israel in 67. The Israelis wanted
them to stay. They bet on the wrong horse. But instead of paying the bookie
they ran. Now years later its like they're going to the bookie and saying,
'that horse that one, we dont recognise it. Its not really a horse so our
horse won, you pay us.' They'd be lucking to be walking after doing something
so damn moronic.
1SHAREREPORT
Obama&HisLegacyAUTHORJul 3, 2011
Obama&HisLegacyAUTHORJul 3, 2011
#3
lastone
SyriaInTurmoilJun 27, 2013
#4
All well said. I couldn't do better. I respect all views. For or against. Good
show.
lastone
I agree with you. Israel almost could not make in '67. They were outgunned
and had to come up with something, and fast, to counter Arabs' 13 armies (of
various sizes) who planned and launched their attacks with only one goal:
drive the Jews into the sea.
Luckily they could come up with a brilliant
formula, and survived.
And luckily, now Israel is much bigger and
stronger economically and technologically.
Its weapons industry really
boosts its wealth.
Israel's weapons are second to none. It had used the
drones to kill Palestinian leader Jassin something long before the US started
using them.
Among grateful recipients of its state-of-the-art weapons
are India and China, who in return see to it that the Jewish state is treated
fairly in the United Nations.
SyriaInTurmoilJun 27, 2013
#4
All well said. I couldn't do better. I respect all views. For or against. Good
show.
0SHAREEXPAND 4 COMMENTS
© 2005-2017 NBC News Digital About Newsvine Contact Us Archives Code of Honor
Terms of Service - UPDATED Privacy Policy
© 2005-2017 NBC News Digital About Newsvine Contact Us Archives Code of Honor
Terms of Service - UPDATED Privacy Policy
If in Libya, why not in Syria?
By Obama&HisLegacy
Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:13 AM
religionobamaandiransyriamuslimtogethertoostrongbrotherhoodakbarallahu
DISCUSS: 7 4 !
Ironic, isn't it? That now Obama had to tighten, instead of easing, sanctions
imposed on Syria purportedly to penalize it for exporting or supporting
international terrorism. The irony was just when the overture by the
administration to Syria was to create a wedge in the Iran-Syria relationship
started to show some, albeit minor result (President Bashar Al-Assad, while
not a friend of Israel, had seen fit to show restrain, if not goodwill, in the
relationship between the two country, even after Israel bombed its budding
nuclear bomb-making plant and by extension, its nuclear ambition, to
smithereens), this had to happen. Syria which wisely decided not to burn the
bridges with the West, was now forced into a corner. To partly join Iran and
partly to stay independent would be ideal, and had so far served its interests
well, but may not be sustainable, not now anyway.
With protesters motivated by the ease with which their counterparts in Tunisia
and Egypt had earlier disposed of their long time dictators, President Bashar
Assad needed to emulate his late father to decisively crush the uprising once
and for all, or else...Now more than ever, he'd need Iran's help, Hezbollah's
help, and Hamas' help, beside his own army's, to survive. Even Israeli leaders
opined that the only way Bashar was going to survive was not through giving
concessions (no protesters having won concessions and smelling of victory
could ever be satisfied), but through decisive suppression.
And President Bashar looked good to continue to helm Syria like his
father.
Although Bashar and his counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt and to a lesser
extent, Bahrain and Oman, were victims of contagion effect of pro-democracy
and universal human rights awakening started by the then newly elected
president of the United States, Barrack Hussein Obama, during his famous
vlsit to Cairo to give a speech at Cairo University.
Of course, this last sentence was heard loud and clear throughout the Arab
world.
Although they hadn't been in constant consultations, and some may be even not
on speaking term, these autocrats had something in common. They had Obama to
thank for their predicament.
Any leader whose followers are prone to shout out Allah u Akbar! Allah u Akbar
was not and will never be Obama's cup of tea. Leaders like President Asif Ali
Zardari of Pakistan and Afghanistan's president Hamid Khazai.
So, it all boiled down, as far as Obama's concerned, to whether you're strong
or dangerous or not; doable or not. If you have nothing to do with the Muslim
Brotherhood, or protected by them, expect trouble from Obama. Col. Qaddafi's
mistake was to openly condemn Islamic fighters sponsored by AlQaeda or Muslim
Brotherhood for helping the Benghazi rebels to fight him, letting the cat out
of the bag. It was all Obama needed to hear. Obama was dithering at the
beginning of the uprising in Libya not because he'd any sympathy for Qaddafi,
but because he's not sure whom he's taking on. He may be accused of being a
weak president, that doesn't mean he's totally helpless. As commander-in-chief
of the armed forces of the world's only superpower, what's more, with the
unique capabilities he said, he could defeat anyone -- except the Muslim
Brotherhood.
Whether or not President Obama intervenes in Syria will be his decision alone.
If he decides to stop dithering and acts to prevent the premature death of
(after all) his pet doctrine to promote democracy, he however wades into
unknown water. There's no doubt President Bashar Al-Assad intended to stay in
power and would do anything to achieve that. As proven against Israeli army in
Lebanon, Syrian army will not be a push-over. It has leverage over and loyalty
of Hezbollah to count on, among others. If President Obama could be henpecked
by Susan Rice, Samantha Powers and Hillary Clinton again into action in Syria,
the American people will likely wake up to another Afghanistan; only for this
one Iran will not clandestinely fight America through sabotage like in Iraq,
but fight Uncle Sam eyeballs to eyeballs.The stakes are high. If Syria (I mean
the Bashar government) goes down, so does Iran's influence in the Middle East.
Lebanon could be next, followed by Hezbollah and Its leader Hassan
Nasrallah.
This will be wishful thinking in futility, Iran was and is a proud nation, it
has never been stronger, even one million deaths during the war with Saddam
Hussein of Iraq, it was never vanquished. Whatever Saddam threw at them --
mustard gas or other chemical weapons -- Iran stood firm, and it, in the end,
prevailed.
The Syrian quagmire, if it ever becomes that, for America it could be its
undoing. The billions that would have to be spent, the thousands of men and
women in uniforms who'll have to meet an early death, will bring this nation
to its knees and its great economy ruined like never before. The end of the
American dream, if you will.
That's another wishful thinking. President Obama can be persuaded by many
people, including even women who call him boss, to do many things he would
normally not do, but for them to try to advise or push him to do anything that
in any way jeopardizes his reelection to another four-year term, would be
futile.
The increasing clamor for action in Syria, coupled with genuine argument that
if in Libya, why not in Syria, could be quite persuasive, "tempting, but No!
Someone please call Alejandro instead. I have fund raising to do, campaign
forays to plan, and John McCain and Kerry to meet to thank them for their
unflinching support, especially the former for his forays into Libya on my
behalf. Well done, Senator John McCain, well done."
What a wishful thinking!
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Candide and MeApr 30, 2011
#1
"Days, not weeks". They must be using the Julian calender?
1SHAREREPORT
Jim-789449Apr 30, 2011C
"Days, not weeks". They must be using the Julian calender?
1SHAREREPORT
Jim-789449Apr 30, 2011C
#3
What the president has done by going into Libya is to set up a standard of
intervention that he must now continue.
He has made our country the policing agency for the world, and under the guise
of humanitarian aid, it was never about that.
What the president has done by going into Libya is to set up a standard of
intervention that he must now continue.
He has made our country the policing agency for the world, and under the guise
of humanitarian aid, it was never about that.
If you consider the facts in what was going on, the sanctions that were to be
put in place were not followed, i.e. a NFZ, Obama, France and the UK declared
war on a sovereign government.
A NFZ does not include attacking ground troops, tanks, and military
transports, the sanctions against Syria are what should have been used in
Libya, so now we have a double standard where the UN, America, France and the
UK decide who to bomb and who not to.
put in place were not followed, i.e. a NFZ, Obama, France and the UK declared
war on a sovereign government.
A NFZ does not include attacking ground troops, tanks, and military
transports, the sanctions against Syria are what should have been used in
Libya, so now we have a double standard where the UN, America, France and the
UK decide who to bomb and who not to.
Libya was having an internal strife issue, a rebellion of its people against
its government, that government has every right to put down that rebellion and
defend itself.
Using the excuse of HA to get involved here is simply saying “If we don’t like
the way you handle your countries problems, we will remove you from power”
Consider the fact that rebellions have been a part of the Middle East
throughout its history, and nothing has ever been done along these lines
before.
This move to intervene with the internal affairs in Libya was and is a
political bombshell and a military blunder!
3SHAREREPORT
Obama&HisLegacyAUTHORApr 30, 2011
its government, that government has every right to put down that rebellion and
defend itself.
Using the excuse of HA to get involved here is simply saying “If we don’t like
the way you handle your countries problems, we will remove you from power”
Consider the fact that rebellions have been a part of the Middle East
throughout its history, and nothing has ever been done along these lines
before.
This move to intervene with the internal affairs in Libya was and is a
political bombshell and a military blunder!
3SHAREREPORT
Obama&HisLegacyAUTHORApr 30, 2011
#4
Thank you all for your comments. Well done. Hope to hear from you all again.
Stay tuned. Good show!
Thank you all for your comments. Well done. Hope to hear from you all again.
Stay tuned. Good show!
1SHAREREPORT
Is Ghadaffi a spent force, or has lost his thinking cap?
Is Ghadaffi a spent force, or has lost his thinking cap?
By Obama&HisLegacy
Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:22 AM
politicscapture-a-few-pilotshit-them-hard-where-it-hurts-their-reelectionput-
them-up-in-hotel-to-watch-footballspeed-is-necessary
DISCUSS: 5 2 !
Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:22 AM
politicscapture-a-few-pilotshit-them-hard-where-it-hurts-their-reelectionput-
them-up-in-hotel-to-watch-footballspeed-is-necessary
DISCUSS: 5 2 !
Type Your Article Here ..
It is amazing how Col. Ghadaffi had been behaving for the last few weeks since
the no-fly zone was set up and enforced by the West. I sometimes wonder why
he's doing what he'd been doing, or shall we say not doing. Blow after blow
they punched him in the face, and he staggered back, not floored, but he still
refused to hit back; he seemed to hope for a change of heart to come over his
three nemesises (Obama, David Cameron and Sarkozy). He seems to think he
should wait till the eleventh hour before unleashing his retaliations.
It is amazing how Col. Ghadaffi had been behaving for the last few weeks since
the no-fly zone was set up and enforced by the West. I sometimes wonder why
he's doing what he'd been doing, or shall we say not doing. Blow after blow
they punched him in the face, and he staggered back, not floored, but he still
refused to hit back; he seemed to hope for a change of heart to come over his
three nemesises (Obama, David Cameron and Sarkozy). He seems to think he
should wait till the eleventh hour before unleashing his retaliations.
Although he may have neglected to modernize his equipement, it's still
not too late to do so. I am sure he can surround himself with advisers who,if
they are advisers worth their salt, would recall how the lightly armed
mujahideens cleverly improvised their fight against an overwhelming superior
forces of the former Soviet Union and sent them back in shameful defeat.
Everyone knows why the Russian army or airfoce lost -- the heat-seeking
shouldered fired missiles. Forget about S-A-M missiles. They are slow to
operate and hard to hide. But if Ghadaffi is half as smart he's reputed to be,
he should be able to think of something.
not too late to do so. I am sure he can surround himself with advisers who,if
they are advisers worth their salt, would recall how the lightly armed
mujahideens cleverly improvised their fight against an overwhelming superior
forces of the former Soviet Union and sent them back in shameful defeat.
Everyone knows why the Russian army or airfoce lost -- the heat-seeking
shouldered fired missiles. Forget about S-A-M missiles. They are slow to
operate and hard to hide. But if Ghadaffi is half as smart he's reputed to be,
he should be able to think of something.
Was it because he didn't want to hastily burn his bridges with President
Obama, which explains his reason for writing him a personal letter imploring
him to rethink his bombing of his ground troops and armour, pining for him as
if his son and forgave him for his past mistakes, and even wished the
president reelection success in 2012.
But what Ghadaffy did or pined for was futile and a mistake. He shouldn't kid
himself into thinking by showing restrain the Western powers would care to
reciprocate. That by not shooting down their gleaming new Rafale, Tornado or
F-18 fighters the Coalition of the willing will go easy on his troops and
armor. No way. No way. These NATO guys are there to help the rebels to achieve
the impossible.They think the whole thing is a piece of cake. Ghadaffi, has
few friends in the Arab world so there will be no Arab protests. Although it's
an invasion into an Arab country, this one will be largely a piece of cake.
Nobody is shouting Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, which means secular form of
government, which also means there will be no Islamists or Jihadists
throughout the world coming out demonstrate and burn the American, British and
French flags, board planes, take control and drive them into the Whitehouse,
Number 10 Downing Street, and the Elysee Palace. So it's down to wehether it's
safe to intervene, doable if you will. President Obama was not reported to
even acknowledge the appeal letter publicly. He's henpecked, remember? Before
Obama could even figure out what to think about Ghadaffi's letter, scretary of
state Hillary Clinton had already dismissed the letter as a joke. That's why
Obama didn't say, "You didn't say please" in reply.
himself into thinking by showing restrain the Western powers would care to
reciprocate. That by not shooting down their gleaming new Rafale, Tornado or
F-18 fighters the Coalition of the willing will go easy on his troops and
armor. No way. No way. These NATO guys are there to help the rebels to achieve
the impossible.They think the whole thing is a piece of cake. Ghadaffi, has
few friends in the Arab world so there will be no Arab protests. Although it's
an invasion into an Arab country, this one will be largely a piece of cake.
Nobody is shouting Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, which means secular form of
government, which also means there will be no Islamists or Jihadists
throughout the world coming out demonstrate and burn the American, British and
French flags, board planes, take control and drive them into the Whitehouse,
Number 10 Downing Street, and the Elysee Palace. So it's down to wehether it's
safe to intervene, doable if you will. President Obama was not reported to
even acknowledge the appeal letter publicly. He's henpecked, remember? Before
Obama could even figure out what to think about Ghadaffi's letter, scretary of
state Hillary Clinton had already dismissed the letter as a joke. That's why
Obama didn't say, "You didn't say please" in reply.
But then again, Ghadaffi's wasting his time in trying to be nice to someone
who's bombed his tent, for crying out loud. In the history of wars, there had
never been an instance of a war being won or halted by appeal for peace or
offer of friendship. Wars were won or ended when one side, or both, had had
enough. The pain in term of loss of life and economic ruine was too much.
During the Somalia civil war, US airmen were captured, killed and their
corpses were paraded in the dusty streets. The US was humiliated when it had
to fight or asked a third party to intervene to reclaim the dead soldiers, and
had to hastily withdraw its forces. The Clintons had been roiled to no end
over this. History could be repeated here in Libya. All it takes is a few
pilots to bail out, are captured and incarcerated, and Ghadaffi will have
western powers' leaders chant "We want Col. Ghadaffi, We want Col. Ghadaffi to
stay for the good of Libyans!" day and night. The no-fly zone is quickly
closed down followed by an announcement :" it all had been a misunderstanding.
Nothing more. The rebels do not represent the majority Libyans who love Col.
Ghadaffi and are prepared to die for him."
corpses were paraded in the dusty streets. The US was humiliated when it had
to fight or asked a third party to intervene to reclaim the dead soldiers, and
had to hastily withdraw its forces. The Clintons had been roiled to no end
over this. History could be repeated here in Libya. All it takes is a few
pilots to bail out, are captured and incarcerated, and Ghadaffi will have
western powers' leaders chant "We want Col. Ghadaffi, We want Col. Ghadaffi to
stay for the good of Libyans!" day and night. The no-fly zone is quickly
closed down followed by an announcement :" it all had been a misunderstanding.
Nothing more. The rebels do not represent the majority Libyans who love Col.
Ghadaffi and are prepared to die for him."
That's the good news that Ghadaffi's dying to hear. Now comes the bad
news. Instead being ambiguos about the position of the Col., the trio now
openly admitted they had lied (about protecting civilians and the mission
creep). They wrote a joint letter to the press outlining their new objective
of regime change, and would do it without getting addtional authorization from
the UN. But the question is will Ban Ki Moon agree to go along. Of course
Obama can threaten the Korean UN secretary general privately that unless he
want to look for another job he better toes the line.
news. Instead being ambiguos about the position of the Col., the trio now
openly admitted they had lied (about protecting civilians and the mission
creep). They wrote a joint letter to the press outlining their new objective
of regime change, and would do it without getting addtional authorization from
the UN. But the question is will Ban Ki Moon agree to go along. Of course
Obama can threaten the Korean UN secretary general privately that unless he
want to look for another job he better toes the line.
So, there's no way out for Ghadaffi --except to fight. Hit hard where it hurts
the western powers the most. Loss of the pilots' lives. Once heir sons and
daughters are in harm's way, I don't think the American, British or French
people will continue to buy Obama's snake oil any more.The obvious answer for
fast fighters or bombers is heat-seeking missiles, preferably the shoulder-
fired stinger or something. Stop pretending that being nice would save his
skin. Stop appealing for kindness or fair play, for their hearts were already
full of hatred and arrogance to have any room for kindness and consideration.
the western powers the most. Loss of the pilots' lives. Once heir sons and
daughters are in harm's way, I don't think the American, British or French
people will continue to buy Obama's snake oil any more.The obvious answer for
fast fighters or bombers is heat-seeking missiles, preferably the shoulder-
fired stinger or something. Stop pretending that being nice would save his
skin. Stop appealing for kindness or fair play, for their hearts were already
full of hatred and arrogance to have any room for kindness and consideration.
Remember when the American embassy was overrun and 652 Americans were
held hostage for 444 days, there was absolute nothing the American government
could do for its citizens. And all Ghadaffi has to do to make it happen is to
shoot down a few planes and capture a few pilots (like what happen in Eastern
Libya that days when two airmen flying an F-15s fighter-bomber ejected and got
caught by (luckily) the rebels. So it's not impossible get hold of a few
pilots, bring them back and lock them up in a luxury hotel room and let them
spend the rest of the war in their room watching American footballs.
held hostage for 444 days, there was absolute nothing the American government
could do for its citizens. And all Ghadaffi has to do to make it happen is to
shoot down a few planes and capture a few pilots (like what happen in Eastern
Libya that days when two airmen flying an F-15s fighter-bomber ejected and got
caught by (luckily) the rebels. So it's not impossible get hold of a few
pilots, bring them back and lock them up in a luxury hotel room and let them
spend the rest of the war in their room watching American footballs.
The good news is this is very doable(again to quote Obama). Incidentally,
the sooner this project is carried out the better. Ghadaffi needs not worry
about any fall out of world opinion; he should worry about what fall down on
his loyal forces and armor!
the sooner this project is carried out the better. Ghadaffi needs not worry
about any fall out of world opinion; he should worry about what fall down on
his loyal forces and armor!
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
5 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Bubba-939441Apr 19, 2011
#2
Air power alone won't take this guy out and Obama said no boots on the ground.
He puts boots on the ground right before an election and Obama is history. He
may be history anyway come 2012. There was no plan from the start.
2SHAREREPORT
Ronin-2Apr 19, 2011
Air power alone won't take this guy out and Obama said no boots on the ground.
He puts boots on the ground right before an election and Obama is history. He
may be history anyway come 2012. There was no plan from the start.
2SHAREREPORT
Ronin-2Apr 19, 2011
#3
This is not similar to Somolia- this is more like Iraq. The Warlords/gangs in
Somalia used their better knowledge of the territory to hit and then
disappear. They were not interested in holding ground against US Forces.
Libya, like Iraq, has land they have to hold against the rebels- they can not
afford to hit and run- as when they commit their heavy armor it is hit with
air strikes. Their best bet would be to move the fight into all of the cities
the rebels hold and force an end (or greatly diminished) air strikes. I wonder
how much longer the rebels will tolerate friendly fire incidents?
Like Iraq this is a fight to the finish. The reason that Gaddafi has not hit
NATO air forces is that it did Saddam no good to hold downed pilots, or even
use them as shields during the first Iraq War. It will only galvanized public
sentiment against him in the US. Same thing will happen here.
This is not similar to Somolia- this is more like Iraq. The Warlords/gangs in
Somalia used their better knowledge of the territory to hit and then
disappear. They were not interested in holding ground against US Forces.
Libya, like Iraq, has land they have to hold against the rebels- they can not
afford to hit and run- as when they commit their heavy armor it is hit with
air strikes. Their best bet would be to move the fight into all of the cities
the rebels hold and force an end (or greatly diminished) air strikes. I wonder
how much longer the rebels will tolerate friendly fire incidents?
Like Iraq this is a fight to the finish. The reason that Gaddafi has not hit
NATO air forces is that it did Saddam no good to hold downed pilots, or even
use them as shields during the first Iraq War. It will only galvanized public
sentiment against him in the US. Same thing will happen here.
Now, if Gaddafi can force NATO, especially the US, to commit ground troops in
order to save the rebels; then public sentiment will turn against the
operation (once again esp. in the US).
Until then the best he can hope for is continuing to look non-aggessive
towards NATO forces: Hoping that as the monetary costs mount that support for
the war ebbs; or, the world opinion shifts. To put it more directly he is in a
waiting game.
order to save the rebels; then public sentiment will turn against the
operation (once again esp. in the US).
Until then the best he can hope for is continuing to look non-aggessive
towards NATO forces: Hoping that as the monetary costs mount that support for
the war ebbs; or, the world opinion shifts. To put it more directly he is in a
waiting game.
1SHAREREPORT
SyriaInTurmoilNov 23, 2013
#4
I have to agree with Ronin-2 eventhough I think what Gaddafi had been doing so
far was a mistake. You see, once one has lost his deterent he's dead-meat. And
the way he's going about doing things, he's far from deterring. So, unless he
bucked up, fired his advisers, strategists and the rest of his useless team
and ...bring in the Russian mobs, or western mercenaries (in plain English, he
needed to do something and quick), he'd be history!
SyriaInTurmoilNov 23, 2013
#4
I have to agree with Ronin-2 eventhough I think what Gaddafi had been doing so
far was a mistake. You see, once one has lost his deterent he's dead-meat. And
the way he's going about doing things, he's far from deterring. So, unless he
bucked up, fired his advisers, strategists and the rest of his useless team
and ...bring in the Russian mobs, or western mercenaries (in plain English, he
needed to do something and quick), he'd be history!
0SHARE
SyriaInTurmoilNov 23, 2013
#5
I have to agree with Ronin-2 eventhough I think what Gaddafi had been doing so
far was a mistake. You see, once one has lost his deterrent he's dead-meat.
And the way he's going about doing things, he's far from deterring. So, unless
he bucked up, fired his advisers, strategists and the rest of his useless team
and ...bring in the Russian mobs, or western mercenaries (in plain English, he
needed to do something and quick), or he'd be history!
SyriaInTurmoilNov 23, 2013
#5
I have to agree with Ronin-2 eventhough I think what Gaddafi had been doing so
far was a mistake. You see, once one has lost his deterrent he's dead-meat.
And the way he's going about doing things, he's far from deterring. So, unless
he bucked up, fired his advisers, strategists and the rest of his useless team
and ...bring in the Russian mobs, or western mercenaries (in plain English, he
needed to do something and quick), or he'd be history!
0SHARE
SyriaInTurmoilNov 23, 2013
#6
SyriaInTurmoilcommented 15 hours ago
#5
YOU
I have to agree with Ronin-2 eventhough I think what Gaddafi had been doing so
far was a mistake. You see, once one has lost his deterrent he's dead-meat.
And the way he's going about doing things, he's far from deterring. So, unless
he bucked up, fired his advisers, strategists and the rest of his useless team
and ...brought in the Russian mobs, or western mercenaries (in plain English,
he needed to do something and quick), he'd be history!
SyriaInTurmoilNov 23, 2013
#6
SyriaInTurmoilcommented 15 hours ago
#5
YOU
I have to agree with Ronin-2 eventhough I think what Gaddafi had been doing so
far was a mistake. You see, once one has lost his deterrent he's dead-meat.
And the way he's going about doing things, he's far from deterring. So, unless
he bucked up, fired his advisers, strategists and the rest of his useless team
and ...brought in the Russian mobs, or western mercenaries (in plain English,
he needed to do something and quick), he'd be history!
0SHARE
Obama's "Red Guards" unleashed
By Obama&HisLegacy
Wed Apr 6, 2011 3:39 AM
politicsobamared-guardschairman-mao-tse-tungmultipurpose-no-fly-zoneobamas-
nuanced-foreign-policy
DISCUSS: 5 3 !
Type Your Article Here
Obama's "Red Guards" unleashed
By Obama&HisLegacy
Wed Apr 6, 2011 3:39 AM
politicsobamared-guardschairman-mao-tse-tungmultipurpose-no-fly-zoneobamas-
nuanced-foreign-policy
DISCUSS: 5 3 !
Type Your Article Here
A no-fly zone to protect rebellion
Obama's locomotive for change (you can believe in) is puffing to a stop in
Libyan desert.
No matter how ambiguous he tried to be, it's become as unambiguous as his
encouragement to Egyptian youths to topple President Mubarak, that he actually
wanted Ghaddafy to go -- "Ghaddafy must go."
And that if the so-called mission creep is not enough to help the rebels
topple the Col.other measures such as boots on the ground may follow
Many, if not all, leaders the world over would like to leave some sort of
legacies behind for the world to admire. But not all legacies are intended or
desirable.
topple the Col.other measures such as boots on the ground may follow
Many, if not all, leaders the world over would like to leave some sort of
legacies behind for the world to admire. But not all legacies are intended or
desirable.
In 1966 Chairman Mao Tse Tung, worried about being overtaken by events
that exploded in Russia, the birth place ofcommunism, and his place in
history, launched what he called Proletarian Cultural Revolution purportedly
to purge China of bourgeoise and reactionary elements, aka his enemies. He
turned China upside down when he unleashed his Red Guards in the millions on
the people of China. Millions were dragged from their homes and beds to be
subjected to humiliation and violence in the streets and public aquares. No
one was exempted; not even court judges, not even thepresident of China then,
Liu Shaochi, or even the parents of the Red Guards themselves. No report cards
were required to warrant prosecution. In another word, all Chinese, men or
women or children --any human beings that moved -- were targeted. It was a
tale of humanitarian crisis of epic proportion. And millions of Chinese of all
ages, no matter guilty or not, perished.
that exploded in Russia, the birth place ofcommunism, and his place in
history, launched what he called Proletarian Cultural Revolution purportedly
to purge China of bourgeoise and reactionary elements, aka his enemies. He
turned China upside down when he unleashed his Red Guards in the millions on
the people of China. Millions were dragged from their homes and beds to be
subjected to humiliation and violence in the streets and public aquares. No
one was exempted; not even court judges, not even thepresident of China then,
Liu Shaochi, or even the parents of the Red Guards themselves. No report cards
were required to warrant prosecution. In another word, all Chinese, men or
women or children --any human beings that moved -- were targeted. It was a
tale of humanitarian crisis of epic proportion. And millions of Chinese of all
ages, no matter guilty or not, perished.
Exactly forty five years later history is repeating itself. The man who was
benhind the infamous Cultural Revolution museum, had this to say for anyone
thinking of going down the same path as Mao: "There is a Chinese proverb which
saysyou should use history as a mirror." said Peng Qian, the deputy major of
Shantou, who was himself a victim of Red Guards' excesses. "Themessage is that
history is a warning to us not to make the same mistake twice (whatever the
reasons). Dont't emulate Chairman Mao."
Apparently President Obama disagreed, for he launched his own equivalent
revolution soon after taking office, with catastrophic effect which would make
Mao TseTung's Great Cultural Revolution pale in comparison.
During the Cairo speech (purportedly to reach out to Muslims or Muslim world),
Obama was not only there to atone for the unfair treatment of Muslims by
previous administrations, "Because of the 9/11 event, the US became furious
and irrational and took actions (against Muslim) which were overboard and
unjustified," but to change the political landscape of the Middle East.
Like former president George W. Bush, President Obama wanted to promote
democracy. But that's where the similarity ends. If Bush worked top
down at getting western-allied dictators to allow more freedom, more to
participate in the democratic process (which didn't seem to work),
Obama chose to work from bottom up, by rooting out the malaise altogether.
democracy. But that's where the similarity ends. If Bush worked top
down at getting western-allied dictators to allow more freedom, more to
participate in the democratic process (which didn't seem to work),
Obama chose to work from bottom up, by rooting out the malaise altogether.
In his speech, Obama didn't mince his words. "Any government that
suppresses peaceful protests loses legitimacy to lead and must must go."
suppresses peaceful protests loses legitimacy to lead and must must go."
Applauses erupted in the hall of the Islamic University every time he
alluded to the current regimes in the Middle East:"Governments should not,
must not, use force to stay in power. It's not sustainable nor justfiable."
But the clearest yet to what can be viewed as his call to his "Red Guards" to
battle stations was when he unabashedly proclaimed right under Mubarak's nose:
"You have the universal right to choose your own form of government. The
United States of America would standby you in your endeavor."
alluded to the current regimes in the Middle East:"Governments should not,
must not, use force to stay in power. It's not sustainable nor justfiable."
But the clearest yet to what can be viewed as his call to his "Red Guards" to
battle stations was when he unabashedly proclaimed right under Mubarak's nose:
"You have the universal right to choose your own form of government. The
United States of America would standby you in your endeavor."
He couldn't bemore unambiguous than that. And the fact that President
Mubarak sat out (or endured) the entire Obama's unbelievable narrative, showed
who's a better leader and more deserving to lead.
Mubarak sat out (or endured) the entire Obama's unbelievable narrative, showed
who's a better leader and more deserving to lead.
It also showed Mubarak a spent force. If he pulled a stunt like that in
Pakistan, which was unlikely, President Asif Ali Zardari would definitely walk
out, or switch off the mike and escort Obama from the stage and towards his
Air Force One.
Pakistan, which was unlikely, President Asif Ali Zardari would definitely walk
out, or switch off the mike and escort Obama from the stage and towards his
Air Force One.
When Obama said Hosni Mubarak could not continue to lead Egpt, he meant
literally. No leader, let alone a strongman, of a country would allow another
foreign leader, no matter who they are, to come into his country and incite
his people right under his q1nose to topple him. Emboldened by Mubarak
silence, President Obama not only pepped up the demonstrators but went to work
to make Mubarak's hold on power unsustainablece. The Egyptian army was
Mubarak's source of strength; once the Obama administration had managed to
convince the generals to ditch him it's all over for Mubarak.
literally. No leader, let alone a strongman, of a country would allow another
foreign leader, no matter who they are, to come into his country and incite
his people right under his q1nose to topple him. Emboldened by Mubarak
silence, President Obama not only pepped up the demonstrators but went to work
to make Mubarak's hold on power unsustainablece. The Egyptian army was
Mubarak's source of strength; once the Obama administration had managed to
convince the generals to ditch him it's all over for Mubarak.
President Obama knew that after the Cairo speech it was a matter of time
before his locomotive of change (you can believe in) started to roll.. And
it did.
First President Zine Abadine Ben Ali was sent packing by Tunisian
demonstrators aka Obama's "Red Guards'" "Flawless," Obama said
to himself after being briefed by his national security team. Next, Egypt's
strongman was shown the exit by Egypt's military after the
generals (who had trained at West Point and had maintained close relationship
with their American counterparts was persuaded by the Pentagon to disobey
their president's order to suppress the uprising. Again,"Flawless!"said Obama,
mimicking Dame Barko in a scene from the movie The Chronicle of Riddick, when
the Lord Marshall, the beast, was fatally wounded by the Furian Riddick, and
her husband Lord Barko rushed in to finish off the beast in order to 'keep
what you kill.' But Dame Barko uttered "Flawless" too soon, as the Furian beat
him to it. In frustration, she cried out.."NOoo!" shriekingly. So far so
good.But something unforeseen could yet happen to his 'flawless' plan like
what happened to Lord Barko and his wife's.
demonstrators aka Obama's "Red Guards'" "Flawless," Obama said
to himself after being briefed by his national security team. Next, Egypt's
strongman was shown the exit by Egypt's military after the
generals (who had trained at West Point and had maintained close relationship
with their American counterparts was persuaded by the Pentagon to disobey
their president's order to suppress the uprising. Again,"Flawless!"said Obama,
mimicking Dame Barko in a scene from the movie The Chronicle of Riddick, when
the Lord Marshall, the beast, was fatally wounded by the Furian Riddick, and
her husband Lord Barko rushed in to finish off the beast in order to 'keep
what you kill.' But Dame Barko uttered "Flawless" too soon, as the Furian beat
him to it. In frustration, she cried out.."NOoo!" shriekingly. So far so
good.But something unforeseen could yet happen to his 'flawless' plan like
what happened to Lord Barko and his wife's.
But that's just a movie, Obama said to pep himself up. Now all he had to
do was wait...for another group of me-too youths somewhere to emulate their
Egyptian
Tahrir square protesters to do some protesting. He didn't have to wait long.
Libya was plunged into the abyss when Ghaddafy tried to buck the trend by
cracking down on the demonstrators.
do was wait...for another group of me-too youths somewhere to emulate their
Egyptian
Tahrir square protesters to do some protesting. He didn't have to wait long.
Libya was plunged into the abyss when Ghaddafy tried to buck the trend by
cracking down on the demonstrators.
President Obama was caught flatfooted and pissed off. "How dare he (Ghaddafy)
defied me," a visibly outraged Obama cursed, when told by his advisers the
whole project -- his Pro-democracy Revolution -- could be in danger of being
stopped in its track. If Ghaddafy wins, or bucks the trend, then it's all
over, he was told. Other Arab leaders who have been warily watching the
upheavals that had spread through the Middle East, realized they, too, could
crack down and could get away with it. So began the no-holds-barred vitriol
against Ghaddafy. "He's a mad man; unfit to govern, lost legitimacy to lead,
turned his guns on his own people, master mind behind Pan-Am bombing
etc.etc.-- he had to go.
Armed with the knowledge that the US armed forces possess unique capibilities
to defeat any country in the world, President Obama, with hatred against
Libya's strongman (aka his nemesis) increasing by the day, wasted no time in
getting organized. He vowed: "You'll not stop me!"
to defeat any country in the world, President Obama, with hatred against
Libya's strongman (aka his nemesis) increasing by the day, wasted no time in
getting organized. He vowed: "You'll not stop me!"
That said, he ordered his UN representative Susan Rice (Not related to
Condoleezza Rice?) to get cracking to get the UN security council to approve a
no-fly zone resolution 1973 (so that that he can bomb the hell out of
Ghaddafy's armed forces without having to deploy boots on the ground) but to
no avail, at first. Without the endorsement from the Arab league there was the
danger of Russia or China using their vetoes. So, according to AP or AAP
article quote: "Wow, President Obama flew propaganda planes over America and
Libya (and may I add? Middle East)." Why the Arab league suddenly decided to
support the no-fly zone, I could only speculate. Was there an arm-twisting or
quid pro quo involved? I don't know. But I'll say this much: the support
seemed more extracted than given as barely 36 hours after the blitz began, Amr
Moussa complained over disproportionate use of force by the American-
led/funded coalition of the willing or unwilling. Turkey, too, disagreed with
the bombing of Ghaddafy's ground troops and armor.
Condoleezza Rice?) to get cracking to get the UN security council to approve a
no-fly zone resolution 1973 (so that that he can bomb the hell out of
Ghaddafy's armed forces without having to deploy boots on the ground) but to
no avail, at first. Without the endorsement from the Arab league there was the
danger of Russia or China using their vetoes. So, according to AP or AAP
article quote: "Wow, President Obama flew propaganda planes over America and
Libya (and may I add? Middle East)." Why the Arab league suddenly decided to
support the no-fly zone, I could only speculate. Was there an arm-twisting or
quid pro quo involved? I don't know. But I'll say this much: the support
seemed more extracted than given as barely 36 hours after the blitz began, Amr
Moussa complained over disproportionate use of force by the American-
led/funded coalition of the willing or unwilling. Turkey, too, disagreed with
the bombing of Ghaddafy's ground troops and armor.
However, after a hiatus of two days, Obama announced to the American
people that the problems had been overcome. The seemingly ubiquitous non-stop
references to the Arab League "support and participation" seemed to indicate
that the support wasn't that solid; even secretary of state Hillary Clinton's
announcement of more Arab countries agreeing to participate in the enforcement
of the no-fly zone, for which she expressed appreciation in advance, didn't
materialize.
These are some of the comments from around the globe on the wisdom of Obama's
taking side in a civil war under the pretext of protecting civillians?
people that the problems had been overcome. The seemingly ubiquitous non-stop
references to the Arab League "support and participation" seemed to indicate
that the support wasn't that solid; even secretary of state Hillary Clinton's
announcement of more Arab countries agreeing to participate in the enforcement
of the no-fly zone, for which she expressed appreciation in advance, didn't
materialize.
These are some of the comments from around the globe on the wisdom of Obama's
taking side in a civil war under the pretext of protecting civillians?
JOHAN JAAFFA zulu.jj@hotmail.com, a prominent writer and columnist, quote:
"SENDING missiles to pulverize Muammar Gaddafi's army is not the way to rid of
a despot the West loves to hate. Imposing a no-fly zone is something, but
attacking a sovereign nation is another. There is no excuse to do so and the
international community should be up in arms to condemn the move."
The Los Angeles Times, in its article "Obama's nuanced foreign policy evident
in Libya vs. Syria," said: The difference in US foreign policy toward them is
an example of Obama's general approach to government: seeing policy in shades
of gray rather than black and white. A senior administration official
confirmed that even milder measures, such as withdrawl of US ambassador,
tightening of sanctions or other economic isolation are not being
weighed."
DIPANKAR GUPTA (a Fellow at Nehru's Museum), has opined: "If all it takes for
a revolution to happen is a bad report card, why only Egypt. What began with
educated unemployed youths,before long began to attract ordinary people and
women. As all this happened without a designated leader, it was more than
magic: it was a miracle! But wait a minute. While Egypt lacked a leader on the
ground, it had one from afar. Without President Obama's constant support the
Egyptian revolution would have failed."
a revolution to happen is a bad report card, why only Egypt. What began with
educated unemployed youths,before long began to attract ordinary people and
women. As all this happened without a designated leader, it was more than
magic: it was a miracle! But wait a minute. While Egypt lacked a leader on the
ground, it had one from afar. Without President Obama's constant support the
Egyptian revolution would have failed."
In his article, AfricanAmerican Pundit wrote: "Sounding more like a war monger
and like former president George W. Bush, than Nobel Peace Prize Winner,
President Obama said of military action in Libya: 'We had to act. The United
States intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter of civillians thatwill stain
the world's conscience and 'been a betrayal of who we are' as Americans'".
According to the article, AAP says: "Wow, Obama just flew a propaganda plane
over the United States, just like the US has deployed propaganda plane over
Libya.
and like former president George W. Bush, than Nobel Peace Prize Winner,
President Obama said of military action in Libya: 'We had to act. The United
States intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter of civillians thatwill stain
the world's conscience and 'been a betrayal of who we are' as Americans'".
According to the article, AAP says: "Wow, Obama just flew a propaganda plane
over the United States, just like the US has deployed propaganda plane over
Libya.
TIME
/div>
In conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong, I've to say this. President Obama,
like other great leaders, wants to leave something behind (some kick @!$%#
legacy) that will be admired, respected and talked about for generation to
come. His actions during the first year of his presidency didn't help his
quest. He was accused of bowing too low to the emperor of Japan, bowed and
kissed the hand King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, heeded China's demand not to
hold joint Naval War Games with South Korea near its maritime border, caved in
to
Russia's demand to cancel the project of stationing missile sites in Poland
and other former Soviet republics or else..,refusing to even admonish Pakistan
leaders for closing its border crossings,stranding hundreds of Nato trucks
carrying supplies to the war fronts in Afghanistan and making them sitting
ducks to the Talibans. To be fair, Obama's behavior so far was actually in
consistence with his doctrine of peace not confrontation, for which he won the
Nobel Peace Prize, hand down.
like other great leaders, wants to leave something behind (some kick @!$%#
legacy) that will be admired, respected and talked about for generation to
come. His actions during the first year of his presidency didn't help his
quest. He was accused of bowing too low to the emperor of Japan, bowed and
kissed the hand King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, heeded China's demand not to
hold joint Naval War Games with South Korea near its maritime border, caved in
to
Russia's demand to cancel the project of stationing missile sites in Poland
and other former Soviet republics or else..,refusing to even admonish Pakistan
leaders for closing its border crossings,stranding hundreds of Nato trucks
carrying supplies to the war fronts in Afghanistan and making them sitting
ducks to the Talibans. To be fair, Obama's behavior so far was actually in
consistence with his doctrine of peace not confrontation, for which he won the
Nobel Peace Prize, hand down.
But what had caused him to change
from a peaceful, humble man to a violent warmonger? Was it a desire to emulate
Chairman Mao too strong to resist, or was it he had had enough
of the insults hurled at him and for uncomplimentary names he had been called
(dithering, spineless, junior senator, community organizer, selective or
nuanced foreign policy maker, to name a few)?. Anyone can be forgiven for
being furious for being called such names.
from a peaceful, humble man to a violent warmonger? Was it a desire to emulate
Chairman Mao too strong to resist, or was it he had had enough
of the insults hurled at him and for uncomplimentary names he had been called
(dithering, spineless, junior senator, community organizer, selective or
nuanced foreign policy maker, to name a few)?. Anyone can be forgiven for
being furious for being called such names.
So, he consulted the happy people at the Pentagon, National Security
Advisory Committee, including the generals and Samantha Power, what he should
do."Crack down," they replied resoundingly. But, where or whom to crack down
on? They can't possibly mean the American people! They are not calling for him
to "go." Not yet anyway; not until 2012. So, it was the poor Ghadafi -- the
former strongman turned not so strong any more --who bore the brunt of Obama's
flexing of muscles. In China Mao Ze Dung relied on his Red Guards to
humiliate, torture, and kill without mercy; in Libya President Obama relied on
his "Red Guards" (me-too youths) and what he ubiquitously referred to as US
armed forces' unique capabilities, to make Col. Ghaddafi "go!"
Advisory Committee, including the generals and Samantha Power, what he should
do."Crack down," they replied resoundingly. But, where or whom to crack down
on? They can't possibly mean the American people! They are not calling for him
to "go." Not yet anyway; not until 2012. So, it was the poor Ghadafi -- the
former strongman turned not so strong any more --who bore the brunt of Obama's
flexing of muscles. In China Mao Ze Dung relied on his Red Guards to
humiliate, torture, and kill without mercy; in Libya President Obama relied on
his "Red Guards" (me-too youths) and what he ubiquitously referred to as US
armed forces' unique capabilities, to make Col. Ghaddafi "go!"
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
...Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Tyler Durden-330839Apr 6, 2011
#1
Unleached you say?
1SHAREREPORT
Another TexanApr 6, 2011
Unleached you say?
1SHAREREPORT
Another TexanApr 6, 2011
#2
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things
I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you
even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone
in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points,
and may God have mercy on your soul.
1SHAREREPORT
Rich-365548Apr 6, 2011
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things
I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you
even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone
in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points,
and may God have mercy on your soul.
1SHAREREPORT
Rich-365548Apr 6, 2011
#3
Laurent Gbagbo too dangerous for Sarkozy and Obama
By Obama&HisLegacy
Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:26 AM
politicsforobamaandnohisownbenghazitooatrocitiessarkozystrongmercysowgbagboima
ginedfly-zonediv>
In his life, or shall we say, since he decided (only God knows when?) he
wanted to be president of the United States of America, Barrack Hussein Obama
had to overcome many hurdles which he called problems. He overcame his first
problem when he was elected senator of Illinois. His next problem was Hillary
Clinton. And then, John McCain -- before marching triumphantly into the
White House.He created history by becoming the first ever Afircan-American to
occupy the highest office of the land and, of course, the world.
Laurent Gbagbo too dangerous for Sarkozy and Obama
By Obama&HisLegacy
Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:26 AM
politicsforobamaandnohisownbenghazitooatrocitiessarkozystrongmercysowgbagboima
ginedfly-zonediv>
In his life, or shall we say, since he decided (only God knows when?) he
wanted to be president of the United States of America, Barrack Hussein Obama
had to overcome many hurdles which he called problems. He overcame his first
problem when he was elected senator of Illinois. His next problem was Hillary
Clinton. And then, John McCain -- before marching triumphantly into the
White House.He created history by becoming the first ever Afircan-American to
occupy the highest office of the land and, of course, the world.
He's a brilliant when it comes to overcoming problems, as he'd proved again
and again. His strategy was to seek popular support for his cause by working
behind the scenes, or behind closed door if you will. During the 2008
Democratic nomination primaries, he lined up as many prominent people as
possible to endorse his candidacy. Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator John
Edwards and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico were those who helped Obama
"overcome his problems." By the time the Clinton camp realized what was
happening, and though former president Bill Clinton stepped in to help by
personally appealing to Bill Richardson, the then Governor of New Mexico and
his former UN representative ( among the few not yet committed to any
candidate), it was already too late. The former president's appeal didn't move
Richardson.
The same tactic was similarly used to prevail over McCain during the general
election...and Col. Muammar Ghaddafy in the Libyan conflict!
Another notable thing about Obama was that he's good at pretending. At the
beginning of the uprising in Libya, he said Co. Ghaddafy must go! But he
pretended to balk at rushing to get involved in another Muslim country for
which Americans have shown fatigue.
Though he kept up his rhetoric against the Libyan strongman, such as
"Ghaddafy had lost his legitimacy to lead", (he must go) etc. round the clock,
he didn't act. A day turned into a week. But he still didn't give the order.
Then it became too much for certain parties; they slammed him for dithering
and called him names. But he was unfazed, why?, because it was his plan to
appear reluctant to commit American forces to a third war, to appear not as a
president recklessly rushing to intervene in another Muslim country, but be
seen as president going into war due to popular demand. The battle cry to
prevent humanitarian disaster, genocide or to prevent the possible slaughter
of up to seventy thousands innocent civilians was his own --by Obama.
"Ghaddafy had lost his legitimacy to lead", (he must go) etc. round the clock,
he didn't act. A day turned into a week. But he still didn't give the order.
Then it became too much for certain parties; they slammed him for dithering
and called him names. But he was unfazed, why?, because it was his plan to
appear reluctant to commit American forces to a third war, to appear not as a
president recklessly rushing to intervene in another Muslim country, but be
seen as president going into war due to popular demand. The battle cry to
prevent humanitarian disaster, genocide or to prevent the possible slaughter
of up to seventy thousands innocent civilians was his own --by Obama.
And when Col. Ghaddafy threatened "we won't show mercy, or will search
for you house to house, room to room," he made the biggest (and probably the
last) mistake of his life, for he allowed President Obama to have the
justification that he here-to-fore didn't have. Legally yes he had the
authority to act as he did as he'd already had authorization from ten out of
15 UN Security Council members (Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil
abstained), and support of the Arab League (which Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton described as crucial) to establish a no-fly zone.
for you house to house, room to room," he made the biggest (and probably the
last) mistake of his life, for he allowed President Obama to have the
justification that he here-to-fore didn't have. Legally yes he had the
authority to act as he did as he'd already had authorization from ten out of
15 UN Security Council members (Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil
abstained), and support of the Arab League (which Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton described as crucial) to establish a no-fly zone.
But morally he knew the no-fly zone would not and could not stop Ghaddafy
or his forces on the ground from massacring tens of thousands if that's really
their intent. But he knew all along that Ghaddafy would never do such a thing,
as proved by the fact that during the battles to regain lost territories from
Ras Lanuf, Brega, Aljadabya up to Benghazi, there was no reports of massacres.
None.
or his forces on the ground from massacring tens of thousands if that's really
their intent. But he knew all along that Ghaddafy would never do such a thing,
as proved by the fact that during the battles to regain lost territories from
Ras Lanuf, Brega, Aljadabya up to Benghazi, there was no reports of massacres.
None.
Although his momentum had been building up steadily with almost the
whole world under his belt, with even the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
lashing out at the Col., he was still cautous. But after Ghaddafy said he'd
show no mercy, everything changed. The rest, as they say, is history. But, is
that it? No! After a few days into the no-fly zone and 110 Tomahawk missiles
later, "Wait a minute," said the enraged Arab League Secretary General Amr
Moussa, "We didn't sign up for this! .We thought we wanted to only protect
civilians." This really rattled the administration, although the French
president or other official rushed to issue statements to the effect that Amr
Moussa said he was misquoted, the seed of doubt was planted in people's
mind.
whole world under his belt, with even the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
lashing out at the Col., he was still cautous. But after Ghaddafy said he'd
show no mercy, everything changed. The rest, as they say, is history. But, is
that it? No! After a few days into the no-fly zone and 110 Tomahawk missiles
later, "Wait a minute," said the enraged Arab League Secretary General Amr
Moussa, "We didn't sign up for this! .We thought we wanted to only protect
civilians." This really rattled the administration, although the French
president or other official rushed to issue statements to the effect that Amr
Moussa said he was misquoted, the seed of doubt was planted in people's
mind.
When the prime minister of Turkey also said Turkey also had second thought
about the way the enforcement of the no-fly zone was carried out, Obama
dispatched his capable secretary of state to meet with Amr Moussa and probably
Obama himself called up Turkey' Recep Tayyip Erdogan to call them to retract
their statements, which they did. The French official or leaders who was quick
to jump in and say Amr Moussa was misquoted, probably lied (for obvious
reason), but since no word came from Moussa denying what the Frtench said,
people took it as the truth. Ironically Amr Moussa continued to stress the
Arab League didn't agree with the disproportionate use of force that had
happened, and even asked for emergency meeting of the League. After a few
days, however, Obama personally announced from the White House that the
problems with the Arab Leaque and Turkey had been overcome.And the next day,
Amr Moussa, a possible presidential candidate in the forthcoming Egyptian
presidential election, perhaps not wanting to alienate Washington which could
be useful for his political ambition, repeated the words (as if they were put
in his mouth by the Obama administration): "We respect the UN resolution 1973
and endorse it." And that was that.
multilateral coalition to return the favor for Nato's help in Afghanistan, or
claiming that "our Arab friends are with us or behind us", suggests that the
backing from the Arabs was far from solid, or as solid as the Obama
administration had wished. Although they went along with Obama's or Clinton's
claim of increasing support from many Arab countries to participate in the
enforcement of the no-fly zone, none had stepped forward to contribute planes
or pilots, which they had plenty, except for Qatar and UAE which agreed, but
so far the bombing are carried out by the Americans, British and French. These
Arab states are worried that these rebels couldn't be controlled, judging by
some statements from Benghazi that they welcome American help but if it's not
coming, never mind. They don't need any outside help. They will fight their
own battles. Which means once they'e assumed power it's hard to predict what
sort of government they will be, whether secular or Islamic.It 's also not far
fetched to imagine an unlikely scenario of the AlQaeda being part of the power
if not the dominant power.
This governing council which the French rushed to recognized as the only
legitimate government of all Libya, consisted of me-too youths and not very
young like elsewhere in the Middle East, former Justice Mustafa Abdul Jalil as
the head of the rebel government, army officers who defected to the anti-
Ghaddafy side (their contribution to the cause cannot be forgotten or ignored,
though they didn't do much fighting they still wanted their share of oil, if
you will); and then what about the AlQaeda? It's an open secret that Ghaddafy
was a sworn enemy of AlQaeda, and AlQaeda fighters are among the rebels (not
because the col. himself said so but because independent sources said so).
If that's the case, it would a tussle between the western powers (the
U.S., Britain and France) without whose airstrikes the rebels would have been
decimated by Ghaddafy, and Islamic militants. But in all probabilities
considered, the West would emerge as the white knight which means the rebel
government if it ever comes to life will be at best western puppet government.
The AlQaeda will make use of that fact to alienate the Muslims from the rebel
government, and they become so weak that they are tottering, Mustafa Abdul
Jalil may be replaced by someone friendly to or someone from among the AlQaeda
ranks. What's more the rebels have no legitimate claim over the oil alone since
everyone notes they are lucky even to be alive, let alone to celebrate their
victory, if not for the western power using Ghaddafy tanks and armor as
targets to test their weapons. Once the dust had settled and Ghaddafy gone, if
he lost power, the people would slowly realize these rebels were not real
heroes; they cried and begged the western powers to save their hides,
according to reports from Richard Angel (the bombs were so powerful that the
tanks melted). If anything, their government if Obama allows it to happen will
last a very short time. Once the Libyans realize this is a de-fac-to
American-led western coalition's intervention to prop up mee-too youths trying
to emulate their Tunisian and Egyptian counterparts, they will in turn be
toppled. No amount of precision bombing will help them if the Libyan people
stage demonstrations and shout: western puppets! Traitors!
U.S., Britain and France) without whose airstrikes the rebels would have been
decimated by Ghaddafy, and Islamic militants. But in all probabilities
considered, the West would emerge as the white knight which means the rebel
government if it ever comes to life will be at best western puppet government.
The AlQaeda will make use of that fact to alienate the Muslims from the rebel
government, and they become so weak that they are tottering, Mustafa Abdul
Jalil may be replaced by someone friendly to or someone from among the AlQaeda
ranks. What's more the rebels have no legitimate claim over the oil alone since
everyone notes they are lucky even to be alive, let alone to celebrate their
victory, if not for the western power using Ghaddafy tanks and armor as
targets to test their weapons. Once the dust had settled and Ghaddafy gone, if
he lost power, the people would slowly realize these rebels were not real
heroes; they cried and begged the western powers to save their hides,
according to reports from Richard Angel (the bombs were so powerful that the
tanks melted). If anything, their government if Obama allows it to happen will
last a very short time. Once the Libyans realize this is a de-fac-to
American-led western coalition's intervention to prop up mee-too youths trying
to emulate their Tunisian and Egyptian counterparts, they will in turn be
toppled. No amount of precision bombing will help them if the Libyan people
stage demonstrations and shout: western puppets! Traitors!
Either way the Libyan rebels, unlike the Egyptian protesters who earned their
respect by being peaceful from start to finish, would be viewed with liitle
respect as they didn't single-handedly cause Ghaddafy to fall; the western
coalition's no-fly zone and subsequent what they call mission-creep, did. Also
whether Ghaddafy stays or goes, it makes no difference. Obama's doctrine is
doomed because of four words most repeated these days: "Why Libya? Why not
Ivory Coast? And if Ghaddafy survives or President Bashar of Syria bucks the
trend, which seems likely in view of large pro-Bashar rallies taking place
throughout the country, it's all over for Obama. Even his foray into Egypt,
touted as a showcase harbinger for democracy and universal rights demanded by
protesting youths, failed to shine. For instant, during the just concluded
referendum. the original\par
brains behind the protests (the youths led by the famous Google executive Wael
Ghonim) found themselves out maneuvered by the Muslim Brotherhood. After a
marathon bargaining among all stakeholders, it was decided the presidential
election would be held in 6 months. The youths who lacked experience asked for
more time to get organized, but was not entertained.When the campaign started,
the youngsters asked the voters to vote no, but the Muslim Brotherhood
campaigned for yes votes. The MB also used preachers in mosques to threaten
worshipers to vote yes if they want to go to heaven! The Muslim Brotherhood
won. The MB, which had ties with Obama in the past could have lobbied the US
president to insist they be included in all discussions and Obama
obliged.
Although to be fair the Muslim Brotherhood has as much right as the other
parties, namely Mubarak's own party NDP which was the largest and other
smaller parties, the old and experienced MB,however, may prevail in Egypt.
They may not win enough to form the government by themselves, but enough to be
kingmaker. Now that they are free to openly campaign for election, expect them
to do even better. Their recent success was just a start. Which was like a
spanner thrown into Obama's pro-democracy doctrine. The dilemma for President
Obama was how to balance on the rope without falling to the ground. If he
chooses the the side of the Cairo protesters, the MB will be furious which
Obama in his right mind has no relish for; but if he chooses the reverse, the
pro-democracy uprisings will die a natural death for sure.
keyboard shortcuts: V vote up
Joe Miller banked on his looks, beard and all but
fluffed/strong>
By Obama&HisLegacy
Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:59 AM
bank-oningratebeard-and-alllisa-murkowski-joe-millernext-timesecond-time-
luckystill-young
DISCUSS: 0 1 !
Type Your Article Here ...
it is confirmed, Sen. Lisa Murkowsky has apparently won the Alaska Senate
seat. Although she realized that her political career was ended when she
surprisingly lost the Senate Republican primary to an untested, unknown (a
nobody) Joe Miller, she fought back as a true heroine to save her family's
political dynasty. At first, she was not keen to run again as after being
defeated so easily by a very light weight opponent, she seemingly had accepted
her and her family's dynasty's fight had seen their best days, it was time to
move on. There was no denying, though, she still has the fire in her belly to
serve the people of Alaska, but was she prepared to be humiliated again so
soon, which was very much a possibility, given that former Alaska governor
Sarah Palin was waiting to come out firing in all cylinders of her weapon to
ensure her family's dynasty was history; buried in the snow of Alaska.
But Joe Miller made her change or make up her mind. After a series of missteps
by him, she realized Miller's victory in the primary was not of his own steam.
The Tea Party was steam-rolling behind him (he could even win the primary
without stumping!). All she had to do was to expose and dissect all his
weakness and missteps, which are many, and the Senate seat was hers.
Joe Miller, to his credit, had done a fine job and looked set to be another
young senator until after the primary. Thence he started to slide (down the
slippery, snow-covered slope of Alaska and ended up you know where). First, he
was not very honest about his nascent life and actions, and started shooting
off his mouth about not only his opponent but also his own friends who could
make or break his campaign. When he was interviewed by the national news
networks and was asked, "Would you support Sarah Palin for president of the
United States?", or "Do you think Sarah Palin qualifies to be president of the
United States?", he was clearly reluctant to endorse her! He mumbled something
like, "I don't think it's my job to go into that now. I have a campaign to
run"! I have never heard of a more ungrateful and selfish person. Why was it
so hard for him to say "Yes, absolutely, she more than qualifies and would
make a great president!" He could have been affected by the soundbite
demonizing Sarah Palin as a person unqualified to become president, or even
vice-president, and then was afraid that by voicing support for 'unpopular'
Palin might affect his chance in the election. What a pity! Did he believe
that the former governor was deaf or "couldn't read" to be ignorant of his
thoughtlessness? Joe Miller didn't deserve her help although hurt as she was,
the governor regardless fought for him to the end. Joe Miller needn't have to
worry about being seen as supporting the former Alaska's governor for
president.If anything, she proved to be a principled person, 100% qualified to
run for the White House in 2012 -- with or without his help!
He didn't prevail even over a write-in candidate written off by the Republican
Party, because of his own misdeeds. The Alaskan people didn't know him then
when they accepted him and partly because they took the former Governor's
words.But after he shot his own foot, they abandoned him in droves.
Although at this hour he hasn't conceded yet, he said that he won't continue
the fight if his side can't make the math. I respect that. Now what's left is
his handsome looks, with the commendable beard and all. Might be his downfall
was caused by his belief that only looks matter in this race where Sen. Lisa
Murkowski stood.
But then again, he is still young. He can grow up and try again next time. Who
knows, may be next time he ends up, as they say, second time lucky. And then
again he could count on his looks (beard and all).
Senator John McCain Doesn't know what's going on.
By Obama&HisLegacy
Fri Feb 4, 2011 6:53 PM
politicsmubarak-long-time-us-ally-obama-interfere-unethical-60000-protesters-
ask-president-to-leave-84-millions
DISCUSS: 0 1 !
Type Your Article Here ..Senator John McCain: President Mubarak has been a
good friend. He has helped us with Israel and to stymie al-Qaeda. We should be
appreciative of that. He later added that the message from the events in Cairo
is that "oppressive and repressive regimes cannot last forever." Well-said,
John McCain! Especially to an embattled president whom you consider a friend,
if I may add. Now let's discuss this. I bet John McCain is as well-informed as
anybody, if not more. He knows what's happening (President Zine el Abidine ben
Ali of Tunisia lost power and fled the country), but..don't know what's going
on.He seems to think since Obama and his advisers seemed to have come to an
unprecedented decision that time's up for Mubarak and he should step down,
there must be a reason.
good friend. He has helped us with Israel and to stymie al-Qaeda. We should be
appreciative of that. He later added that the message from the events in Cairo
is that "oppressive and repressive regimes cannot last forever." Well-said,
John McCain! Especially to an embattled president whom you consider a friend,
if I may add. Now let's discuss this. I bet John McCain is as well-informed as
anybody, if not more. He knows what's happening (President Zine el Abidine ben
Ali of Tunisia lost power and fled the country), but..don't know what's going
on.He seems to think since Obama and his advisers seemed to have come to an
unprecedented decision that time's up for Mubarak and he should step down,
there must be a reason.
Did he analyze it? If he did, I'm sure any man worth his salt would not
shoot his mouth off like that. He would realize like many analysts do that the
Egyptian protest would not have taken place if not for the Tunisian uprising.
It was, clearly, not a case of long suppression or repression, that the
protesters wanted us to believe, which led to the Cairo demonstration. It has
nothing to do with Mubarak's rule.The culprit was the TVs. After watching how
chaos forced president Ben Ali from power, the Egyptian youths became
convinced they could the same with president Mubarak. That's the cause of the
Egyptian unrest. Plain and simple. He should not believe every word spewed by
American media.They are Obama's unofficial representatives.He should also talk
to the silent majority.
shoot his mouth off like that. He would realize like many analysts do that the
Egyptian protest would not have taken place if not for the Tunisian uprising.
It was, clearly, not a case of long suppression or repression, that the
protesters wanted us to believe, which led to the Cairo demonstration. It has
nothing to do with Mubarak's rule.The culprit was the TVs. After watching how
chaos forced president Ben Ali from power, the Egyptian youths became
convinced they could the same with president Mubarak. That's the cause of the
Egyptian unrest. Plain and simple. He should not believe every word spewed by
American media.They are Obama's unofficial representatives.He should also talk
to the silent majority.
Egypt has a population of 84 million, for crying out loud. Not many are
crying out for Mubarak to resign. Isn't that something? Only a tiny minority
is protesting. Don't the majority have any issues with the government? They
do. So do people of other countries. They say yes the condition could be
better, but they are not worse off than other Arabs. Many ordinary Egyptians,
not connected to the protesters, say 'I would be sad if the president has to
pack and leave just because 60,000 protesters ask him to.' To be fair, McCain
did say a few good words about Mubarak. He called Mubarak a friend (of
America). "He helped us with Israel, stymie al-Qaeda, and checks Iran's
advance. We should be appreciative of his contribution to the middle east
peace and stability."But then, in the same breath, he said Mubarak should go!
Why? Because of the ten of thousands of protesters' demand? What about the ten
of thousands of anti-protesters who want Mubarak to stay? Oh, of course, he
was told by the Obama's administration that this group was unleashed by
Mubarak,and he believed them? And oh, I heard McCain and Obama have finally
buried the hatchet. Congratulation. Heard tell Obama's former rival was
invited to the White house purposely to talk about this. May I ask if they
discussed "the biggest ever protest" in Egyptian history? Didn't Obama shake
your hand and embraced you and whispered these words into your ears? "To the
Egyptian people (protesters) I say: 'We hear your voices.' Or, may be, this
was put into your mouth: "Message from the events in Cairo is that oppressive
and repressive regimes cannot last forever".
crying out for Mubarak to resign. Isn't that something? Only a tiny minority
is protesting. Don't the majority have any issues with the government? They
do. So do people of other countries. They say yes the condition could be
better, but they are not worse off than other Arabs. Many ordinary Egyptians,
not connected to the protesters, say 'I would be sad if the president has to
pack and leave just because 60,000 protesters ask him to.' To be fair, McCain
did say a few good words about Mubarak. He called Mubarak a friend (of
America). "He helped us with Israel, stymie al-Qaeda, and checks Iran's
advance. We should be appreciative of his contribution to the middle east
peace and stability."But then, in the same breath, he said Mubarak should go!
Why? Because of the ten of thousands of protesters' demand? What about the ten
of thousands of anti-protesters who want Mubarak to stay? Oh, of course, he
was told by the Obama's administration that this group was unleashed by
Mubarak,and he believed them? And oh, I heard McCain and Obama have finally
buried the hatchet. Congratulation. Heard tell Obama's former rival was
invited to the White house purposely to talk about this. May I ask if they
discussed "the biggest ever protest" in Egyptian history? Didn't Obama shake
your hand and embraced you and whispered these words into your ears? "To the
Egyptian people (protesters) I say: 'We hear your voices.' Or, may be, this
was put into your mouth: "Message from the events in Cairo is that oppressive
and repressive regimes cannot last forever".
As a supporter, during the presidential campaign, and fan of Vietnam war
hero, I am disappointed by what McCain said on BBC World News America and BBC
News Website. Bizarre, he acted as if he had been tasked by Obama. Correct me
if I'm wrong. As an important man fit to be president, he is not expected to
follow other people around -- much less to call on a long time US ally to step
down. If he had followed the news during the past week, he would notice how
serious has the administration been in trying to topple a foreign, independent
country's lawfully elected president -- in cahoot with a mere 60,000 Egyptian
youths.
hero, I am disappointed by what McCain said on BBC World News America and BBC
News Website. Bizarre, he acted as if he had been tasked by Obama. Correct me
if I'm wrong. As an important man fit to be president, he is not expected to
follow other people around -- much less to call on a long time US ally to step
down. If he had followed the news during the past week, he would notice how
serious has the administration been in trying to topple a foreign, independent
country's lawfully elected president -- in cahoot with a mere 60,000 Egyptian
youths.
Even if they numbered 600,000, the American government has no right to
interfere. Ironically they, from Obama to white House press secretary Robert
Gibbs, admitted as much. John McCain should answer this pertinent question
before getting involved in something that the US doesn't normally do. Why the
administration never lifted a finger to help the Burmese people who are more
oppressed than the Egyptians?Why not do more for the opposition leader Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi? Why not engage in similar scheme in cahoot with the Dalai
Lama or his government in exile against the Chinese government? When the
opposition in Iran launched protests after they felt cheated of victory in the
presidential election, which president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 'won', why Obama
never openly said the famous words? "To the Iranian people: 'We hear your
voices.'"
interfere. Ironically they, from Obama to white House press secretary Robert
Gibbs, admitted as much. John McCain should answer this pertinent question
before getting involved in something that the US doesn't normally do. Why the
administration never lifted a finger to help the Burmese people who are more
oppressed than the Egyptians?Why not do more for the opposition leader Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi? Why not engage in similar scheme in cahoot with the Dalai
Lama or his government in exile against the Chinese government? When the
opposition in Iran launched protests after they felt cheated of victory in the
presidential election, which president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 'won', why Obama
never openly said the famous words? "To the Iranian people: 'We hear your
voices.'"
We also should ask why suddenly the United States decides to interfere in
Egypt but ignored Lebanon where its popularly elected government led by
assassinated former prime minister Rafic Hariri's son was brought down?
Although Hezbollah clearly acted illegally in elbowing out the western-backed
government, nothing was done to help or to at least ensure a level-playing
field for both sides. So it's clear Obama doesn't confront all problems as and
when they occur around the world but only those considered soft targets --
like Egypt. If Obama is successful in toppling Mubarak, and King Abdullah II
and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia follow suit, God help Israel! McCain should
realize what the Obama administration is doing is unethical and unforgivable,
and they know it. So they try to involve as many prominent Americans as
possible. John McCain played into their hands when he advocated Mubarak should
leave and let his vice-president handle the transition. Why should Mubarak
leave? Has he lost an election? Has he committed impeachable offense? Sick and
so unable to lead? None of these has happened. McCain should put himself in
Mubarak's place, and see if he is prepared to step down if 60,000
demonstrators demand he quit. He can't mean what he said. It doesn't make
sense. If he is a true leader who's fit to be president, McCain should retract
his statement, immediately!.
Egypt but ignored Lebanon where its popularly elected government led by
assassinated former prime minister Rafic Hariri's son was brought down?
Although Hezbollah clearly acted illegally in elbowing out the western-backed
government, nothing was done to help or to at least ensure a level-playing
field for both sides. So it's clear Obama doesn't confront all problems as and
when they occur around the world but only those considered soft targets --
like Egypt. If Obama is successful in toppling Mubarak, and King Abdullah II
and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia follow suit, God help Israel! McCain should
realize what the Obama administration is doing is unethical and unforgivable,
and they know it. So they try to involve as many prominent Americans as
possible. John McCain played into their hands when he advocated Mubarak should
leave and let his vice-president handle the transition. Why should Mubarak
leave? Has he lost an election? Has he committed impeachable offense? Sick and
so unable to lead? None of these has happened. McCain should put himself in
Mubarak's place, and see if he is prepared to step down if 60,000
demonstrators demand he quit. He can't mean what he said. It doesn't make
sense. If he is a true leader who's fit to be president, McCain should retract
his statement, immediately!.
President Obama's Moment..
By Obama&HisLegacy
Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:28 AM
politicsinaobamainternationalpeaceshouldbidentrueeastlawsleaderjoemiddlestandm
ubarakcloseallyrethinkdisobeygratjeopardized
DISCUSS: 0 2 !
Type Your Article Here ..
The moment had finally arrived for president Obama to repair his tattered
image in the eyes of the world, particularly in Muslim countries.
When air strikes mistakenly killed three Pakistani soldiers, Pakistan
immediately retaliated by closing its borders with Afghanistan, effectively
disrupting urgently needed supplies to the war front in Afghanistan; hundreds
of trucks were trapped and then rocketed by the Taliban. Although initially
Obama denied responsibility for killing the 3 soldiers, then took an about-
turn by admitting responsibility and apologizing to its leaders, Pakistan did
not immediately respond. They deliberately took what seemed like an eternity
before they relented and reopened the crossings. They turned a deaf ear to the
US' pleas warning it could harm the allied war efforts. That showed how much
leverage the United States enjoyed over its aid recipients. By right, as
Pakistan and the US are allies, Pakistan should not close the crossing, or
retaliate, if you will, at all. In another word, nobody is afraid of Uncle Sam
no more.
Due to Obama, the US has turned from the world's only super power into one of
the world's super powers (the other being the new kid on the block: China). At
the rate, if Obama should win another term 2012, America will be crowned as a
world power alongside Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Britain, to name a
few, which will receive the prestigious titles bestowed by China (the world's
sole super power!
Obama knew the above-mentioned scenario is not only possible but already
happening. China has overtaken Japan as the second-largest economy on earth.
China had had its way since it invaded and occupied Tibet, its then neighbor.
The tiny
Buddhist kingdom went down fighting. When it requested help from the US, it
was denied. From that day onward, the Chinese knew one day they could rule
the world.But I digress here.
As everyone knows Obama managed to defeat a much better candidate in the
Democratic primaries and then John McCain, a war hero, in the presidential
election, because of his slogans. That if elected he will reshape the US
foreign policy to repair the tattered image of the American government, to end
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to bring change 'you can believe
in.'
So far, Obama has done quite well,actually. He got to a promising start by
winning a Noble Prize without having to do anything, hands-down, if you
will.
While it's unprecedented for a US president to win a Noble Prize --hands-down
or not -- it seemed not nearly enough for the world's most powerful man. It
has to be more. And considering that he had been humiliated by his clients
like president
Hamid Karzai and Pakistani leaders, who owed their own survival to him, often
enough, he began to realize, probably quite awhile now, he has to do something
to better not the American image but his own image.
He has to crack down, to show who is the boss. But on whom? He can't possibly
target the American people. They're not protesting against him near the ground
zero for supporting the building of the mosque near the hallowed ground in New
York; not yet anyway. Then...all of a sudden his problem was solved. The
Egyptians decided to take the cue from the Tunisians and tried to topple
president Hosni Mubarak. All president Obama needs to do now is to be seen as
being instrumental in the ouster of Mubarak! A task he believes he can handle
easily given the fact president Mubarak is close friend of the United States.
He is always open to suggestion. The opposite to Pakistani president who are
receptive only to domestic demand or voices.
Initially, he urges restraint on both side; but as upheaval continued to
unfold, and the protest seemed to gain momentum (which means Mubarak is
tottering), his advisers concluded the time has come to remove the president
of Egypt even though his mandate ends only in September -- and get the credit
for it.
The plan is easy. Carefully word statements that are issued round the clock to
complicit media, to encourage the protesters to not be afraid Uncle Sam is
with you, etc.etc.while at the same time publicly and privately calling on
Mubarak to allow the protests without hindrance. The administration wants
Mubarak to go so bad they decided not to take any chance. When the Egyptian
army chief, who was on working visit to Washington, heard the news of the
turmoil back home, and decided to cut short whatever he was doing and prepared
to leave, the Pentagon officials even went to the extent of extracting a
promise from him not use force against the protesters before letting him
leave. Only God knows if any arm-twisting or quid pro quo was invovled.
Everyone knows, including American officials how the demonstration will turn
out depends on whose side the army takes. That seemingly demure role the
500,000-strong army seems to be adopting, suggests the Americans have met
their target so far.
Without a single day passed by without the Whitehouse ramping up the pressure
on Mubarak; first by putting words in his mouth to say he was not seeking
reelection when his term ends in September, to the latest practically asking
Mubarak to step down right away. According to Robert Gibbs, White House press
secretary, he didn't want to get into anything, but believed Obama had already
told Mubarak in no uncertain term that his time was up! His statement to the
Egyptian people (protesters): 'We hear your voices' can be compared with his
slogan in his democratic primaries fight against his Hillary Clinton which
worked like magic: 'Change you can believe in.'
It's still early to predict whether Obama could have his way and restore his
image as a strong leader not humbled by anyone, as he was widely viewed to be.
So it's now or never. In a nutshell, Mubarak's trouble becomes Obama's
opportunity.
image as a strong leader not humbled by anyone, as he was widely viewed to be.
So it's now or never. In a nutshell, Mubarak's trouble becomes Obama's
opportunity.
If it were the prime minister of Lebanon, nobody would care much, but
president of Egypt! What?! The elected president of a sovereign Arab country
of 85 millions has to step down after receiving orders from the US president!
If he succeeds in his plans, he will rewrite history, be the man behind the
domino effect, if any, that will sweep through the middle east; treaties
between states will become void or abrogated as new leaders emerge to replace
the present western-friendly regimes who,however, would never meekly surrender
their power, leading to protracted civil wars which will likely kill
thousands, or hundreds of thousands; not to mention Israel would be forced to
sign a peace agreement with the Palestinians against their will, or prepares
to bleed to destruction having to allot almost all its resources to fight a
war of attrition with its transformed neighbors.
br/>
The above frightening scenarios are possible and already rearing their heads
in Egypt only on Obama's watch. If president Bill Clinton or George W. Bush
were in the White House, this copycat protest won't last this long, or may be
not even starts at all because indications from American officials will be
loud and clear they won't support an uprising by just a few thousands -- or
even hundred thousands, for that matter -- of internet-savvy youths. The
majority of Egyptians (85 millions) are not protesting, for crying out loud!
President Clinton and President Bush, unlike Obama, will look at the bigger
picture -- president Mubarak has a positive impact on peace in the region,
Israel's security, the importance of the Suez Canal to shipping, American
shipping, and overall peace in West Asia and, by extension, the world.
The above frightening scenarios are possible and already rearing their heads
in Egypt only on Obama's watch. If president Bill Clinton or George W. Bush
were in the White House, this copycat protest won't last this long, or may be
not even starts at all because indications from American officials will be
loud and clear they won't support an uprising by just a few thousands -- or
even hundred thousands, for that matter -- of internet-savvy youths. The
majority of Egyptians (85 millions) are not protesting, for crying out loud!
President Clinton and President Bush, unlike Obama, will look at the bigger
picture -- president Mubarak has a positive impact on peace in the region,
Israel's security, the importance of the Suez Canal to shipping, American
shipping, and overall peace in West Asia and, by extension, the world.
If president Obama continues to insist as he makes quite clear through his
press secretary he does, on removing president Mubarak, which only a few days
ago Vice-president Joe Biden had said as a legally elected president, "He
doesn't need to step down," the US could be accused of interfering in the
internal affairs of an independent state, and could face lawsuit by a citizen
of Egypt who doesn't agree with his action, in world court.
Obama, to be fair, is not to be blamed alone, or blamed at all, because he was
obviously goaded on by his advisers who many have claimed lack experience in
dealing with a major crisis like this. Hence the ever changing stands by Obama
for the last few days. But all is not yet lost. Mubarak is still in office.
And there reports though reluctantly filed by Msnbc's biased reporters, except
Brian Williams, suggesting there was a setback for anti-Mubarak protesters.
Perhaps the silent majority have responded to their president to choose
between chaos and stability. Obama should mount a damage control action
without delay if he wants to save Israel and his legacy.
If he persists, there is nothing anybody could do. He is the most powerful man
in the world. But he's well advised to desist from his plan to dominate the
world. It would not only worsen the already tattered image of the United
States of America, which he promised the American people he would work to
change, but also would go down in history as the only president who blatantly
disobeys international laws and diplomatic norm in state-to-state relations.
The question is what makes him think the United States has the right to
dictate who leads which country. The 1.3 billion annual aid? Is that it? I
think it's Obama's turn to "give meaning to his words" that the US has no
right or want to dictate whether Mubarak goes or stays! That only the
Egyptians can determine that through the ballot box!
in the world. But he's well advised to desist from his plan to dominate the
world. It would not only worsen the already tattered image of the United
States of America, which he promised the American people he would work to
change, but also would go down in history as the only president who blatantly
disobeys international laws and diplomatic norm in state-to-state relations.
The question is what makes him think the United States has the right to
dictate who leads which country. The 1.3 billion annual aid? Is that it? I
think it's Obama's turn to "give meaning to his words" that the US has no
right or want to dictate whether Mubarak goes or stays! That only the
Egyptians can determine that through the ballot box!
In the end, president Obama's consistency leaves much to be desired. As we
have often seen when he was involved in dispute with countries like China or
Russia, or even Pakistan, whose leaders are forceful, president Obama could be
expected to cave in at the drop of a hat. President Mubarak makes one mistake
- he didn't turn against the US even though he could get away with murder
given how he had been treated.If it were a Pakistaini leader that was
humiliated without any justification, expect trouble for the United States;
its embassy will be bombed, American tourists may be arrested or abducted as
revenge. But this scenario is only an imagination. No US prsident dares to
dictate to Pakistan or its leaders.
Before I go, I want to tell a related story. One of my cats, male, lives among
many bigger and of course menacing male cats. From what I observed, male cats'
primary function is to procreate. They constantly fight to fulfill
their obligation, if not to satisfy their biological urge, which I suspect. But
this fellow is small, much smaller than the rest, which had me worried. I
don't know how he will fare in a mortal combat, but I don't want even to
imagaine the outcome; it will break my heart. However, I am glad my fear for
the worst for him was unfounded, actually. You see, being small he realized he
needed to find a way to make up for the shortfall. And he did. If he sensed an
imminent danger by another cat, whatever the size, he would take the fight to
them (bigger cats) and convince them it will not be a walkover. So far it has
worked for him. Thank God.
Yeah, right, giving healthcare coverage to millions who had been denied access
is the equivalent of Mao's slaughtering millions over a paranoid delusion.
That horrible Obama should be crucified for encouraging people of the middle
east to demand democracy. How dare he perpetrate such evil. That was sarcasm
by the way. If you want to look for a semi-legitimate comparison to Mao's or
Stalin's purges, look to the GOP's McCarthyite tactics of accusing anybody who
disagrees with them of being unAmerican, like you just did.
2SHAREREPORT
Coral AtlasApr 6, 2011
#3.1
Thank you Rich
Politics and economics are merged together in many human minds.
Politics concerns the representation of everyone using elected individuals who
have been given a proxy and a mandate by the masses.
Economics are theories such as communism, socialism and capitalism that alter
the form of politics.
While economics appears inextricable from politics as a whole - these theories
can be examined separately
Communism failed politically but the economic theory is sound - socialism has
failed in many areas but works and finally capitalism has failed in ways that
are impacting and threatening humanity and the planet in ways the general
population does not yet grasp. Pollution, social segregation, calculated
neglect with profit as the base equation and so on ....
Communism and socialism both acknowledge the practical facts - that resources
to keep humans and for that matter the entire planet alive are not unlimited.
All resources come from nature -we humans come from nature.
Nature is the sole source of life and whatever humans may egotistically think
they have to contribute all humans are derivatives of nature.
Without nature there are NO humans!
That is the basis for the politics this planet needs. Centered around nature
and economic theories that are true and pure. There is no problem on the
supply side - there is misallocation of what is needed and mismanagement of
nature which causes demand
It is true that humans cannot exist on earth without either leaving the planet
in large numbers or depopulating the planet with biological tools that are
targeted against specific humans based on age or location or education or even
sexual preferences.
This of course raises many questions the answers for which are withheld from
the masses.
Their are choices - the few or the many.
Coral AtlasApr 6, 2011
#3.1
Thank you Rich
Politics and economics are merged together in many human minds.
Politics concerns the representation of everyone using elected individuals who
have been given a proxy and a mandate by the masses.
Economics are theories such as communism, socialism and capitalism that alter
the form of politics.
While economics appears inextricable from politics as a whole - these theories
can be examined separately
Communism failed politically but the economic theory is sound - socialism has
failed in many areas but works and finally capitalism has failed in ways that
are impacting and threatening humanity and the planet in ways the general
population does not yet grasp. Pollution, social segregation, calculated
neglect with profit as the base equation and so on ....
Communism and socialism both acknowledge the practical facts - that resources
to keep humans and for that matter the entire planet alive are not unlimited.
All resources come from nature -we humans come from nature.
Nature is the sole source of life and whatever humans may egotistically think
they have to contribute all humans are derivatives of nature.
Without nature there are NO humans!
That is the basis for the politics this planet needs. Centered around nature
and economic theories that are true and pure. There is no problem on the
supply side - there is misallocation of what is needed and mismanagement of
nature which causes demand
It is true that humans cannot exist on earth without either leaving the planet
in large numbers or depopulating the planet with biological tools that are
targeted against specific humans based on age or location or education or even
sexual preferences.
This of course raises many questions the answers for which are withheld from
the masses.
Their are choices - the few or the many.
0SHAREREPORT
Toon The NewsApr 6, 2011
#4
Obama Loses Nobel Peace Prize!!!
2SHAREREPORT
Obama's administration's balancing act a possible death knell for
Mubarak's administration.
By Obama&HisLegacy
Tue Feb 1, 2011 11:59 PM
politicseuropeobamaandhighclintonegyptarmybidenlefthillaryjoedrymubarakegyptia
neasternhosni
DISCUSS: 1 2 !
Type Your Article Here ...President Obama's balancing act doesn't help anybody
in the upheaval unfolding in Egypt; it could even turns into death knell for
President Hosni Mubarak!
For the first time ever in American history, a US president acted contrary to
what is expected of American value -- we standby our friends, we are grateful
for their help or kindness.
What president Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton did or said
for the few days might be viewed by Mubarak as betrayal by the United States.
Until recently, Hosni Mubarak had been a great help for American foreign
policy in the Middle East, beside Kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Mubarak
had played his role well in preventing wars between Israel and the
Palestinians, saving lives. And until recently, few would view the Egyptian
president as a devil that he had been accused of for the last few days. For 30
years, he had acted decisively and timely to prevent bloodshed, and had earned
widespread, if not public, acknowledgement of "Well done" from all peaceful
people of the world.
After the Tunisian uprising, everything changed. The Egyptian youths too want
change; change that they might have wished for before but didn't want to or
simply dared not do anything about it until the Tunisians showed the way.
So, it looked like it was not, as American leaders are fond of saying, an
under current of discontent suddenly bursting to the surface because the
Egyptians couldn't take it any more; rather it was an opportunity that the
internet-savvy youths could not resist to exploit. These protesters are
leaderless. So they are all ears for any signs from Washington. To say they
heard what they hope to hear is an understatement.
Stressing and stressing at every opportunity, by everyone from the president
himself to secretary of state, to press secretary Robert Gibbs, that the
United States could not and didn't want to dictate who will lead Egypt, but at
the same time added that the Egyptian 'people' should be allowed to continue
with their uprising. Not a word was said about Mubarak's contribution to peace
and stability in the Middle East -- especially between Palestinians and the
Jewish state.
Such statements such as, Obama's to Egypt: 'We hear your voices', and Hillary
Clinton's 'The Egyptian people have the right to protest, to determine their
own future, did not help long term peace prospects in the middle east.
Itcertainly won't help Mubarak. Many have claimed Obama was hasty in, quote,
'pulling the rug from under an ally.' In another word, we won't stand in your
way if you want to bring down the government. Correct me if I'm wrong but
that sounded like incitement to me.
If Obama seeks election to the White House to serve the American people's
interests, he should stop being a traitor to America's friends. Just because
president Mubarak was taken by surprise by a handful of protesters, the
American people don't want their president to openly display what looks like
ingratitude to an ally that had contributed so much towards Israel's security.
And what message this type of behavior of throwing loyal friends under the bus
would send to other western-friendly leaders in the middle east who are now
obviously worried they are next.
The outcome from this upheaval in Egypt for the United States will be -- fewer
friends, fewer people will trust American words; they may accept billions from
us to splurge away but don't count on their sincere loyalty. Does the name
Pakistan ring any bell? Have you heard about 3 Pakistani soldiers accidentally
killed by air-strike somewhere around porous borders between Afghanistan and
Pakistan? If you have, you may also have heard how our supposed ally
retaliated by closing its borders where the main supplies for the men and
women fighting in Afghanistan have to pass through -- effectively undermining
the war efforts. Ask any leaders in Poland and other countries in eastern
Europe how Obama couldn't wait to reverse the plan to station missiles in
their countries, that former president George W. Bush took so long to
negotiate, after Russia threatened to resume cold-war-era-type bomber
patrolling of the Atlantic oceans. Now, for instance, if these countries were
forced tochoose between Russia and America, we can't blame them if they choose
the former as the latter doesn't inspire confidence any more.
They must be watching intently right now how Obama is doing to Egypt's Hosni
Mubarak what he did to president Lech Kaczynski of Poland, among others, early
in his presidency.
In conclusion, I want to ask these questions. What will happen now to Egypt
and the enormous arsenal of arms that the US helped to build up or licensed it
to manufacture? What if a new a leader is anti-Israel and causes Egypt to look
and operate as Iranian ally, like Syria and new kid on the block, Lebanon, and
uses its F-16s or turns its 500,000-strong army against Israel? What if
Lebanon and Hamas attack simultaneously and are later joined in by Syria and
Egypt and the Jewish state's position becomes 'untenable' as secretary Clinton
is fond of labeling these situation? Will president Obama say to the Arabs:
'We hear you!?
Even Chris Matthews, who was one of the many Msnbc show hosts instrumental in
sending Obama to the White House, couldn't not find issue with the way the
Whitehouse chose to repay the sacrifices made by president Mubarak for the
sake of Israel, and by extension, the United State. Only vice-president Joe
Biden spoke out for Mubarak.
C
He said no, when asked if Hosni Mubarak should go. "President Mubarak is our
ally; he's no dictator, and there is no need for him to step down," added the
vice-president, perhaps realizing that only thousands of people demonstrated
against Mubarak while Egypt has a population of 80 millions!
start your own.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
1 COMMENT
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no
threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
SyriaInTurmoilMay 5, 2014
#1
What President Obama got from his experimentation with democracy (Arab Spring)
was a broken Middle East interspersed with beta success; no free and fair
elections have successfully been held to elect respectable leaders in Tunisia;
Libya did even worse; the ordinary Libyans who thought, at first, why fixed
something that was not broken (remembering how good was life under Col.
Muammar Gadaffi compared to life after the Arab Spring) but went on to support
Obama's Arab Spring revolution because of belief in American systems. Now
every ordinary Libyan regretted they had abandoned Qaddafi and shown
ingratitude for what he had done for them (During Gaddafi's rule there was no
food shortage, all children could study up to university level free of charge
which's not available anywhere else, not even in the US itself!) Exactly the
same thing happened in Egypt - why fixed something that's not broken? - after
a whirlwind of gesturing, hinting, encouraging and finally downright
instigating done from afar, the Egyptians went for it and blundered big time.
The infamous Arab Spring did benefit some one, though; it paved the way for
the Muslim Brotherhood to take over with the concomitant disaster that's now
raging. People like to point the finger at Gen. Sisi but miss the point; the
general and his military tried to fix what went wrong due to someone else's
doing. They came to pick up the pieces, that's all. But then again, not all
the blame can be laid at the president's feet. He may not have anticipated the
hidden intention of President Mohamad Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood or Muslim
Brotherhood's Mohamad Morsi. President Obama tried to help ...in good
faith.
0SHARE
The Korean Skirmish
By Obama&HisLegacy
Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:16 PM
DISCUSS: 0 1 !
Type Your Article Here ..
Why the North Koreans attacked the South Korean island while the South Koreans
were having a military exercise using all sort of weapons firing live
ammunition? Because they can! (get away with it)
The South threatened an enormous retaliation (don't they always?),but the
North's Kim seemed unworried. The most they ever have to worry about is show
of force by Washington, if anything; and even that would be just that: a show
of force. The Americans are not what they used to be,especially under the
Administration of president Obama, one of whose immediate actions when he
became Commander-in-Chief of the world's only superpower, was to give in to
Russia over the missile sites in Poland and other former Soviet republics (to
the dismay of US allies).
The South Koreans know they have to depend on the United States for
protection, they have no other choice; but they also knew about the Obama's
cave-in to Putin's implied threat to resume Russian strategic-bomber
patrolling of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans if the US persisted in stationing
of so-called anti-Iran missiles in central or eastern Europe.
This does not, however, mean Seoul is helpless. Consider this; if the South
Koreans could progress so advanced in business and technology to almost
overtake the Japanese, they're capable of anything.
For example, if they decide to stop being target practice for the North and
fight back, the South Koreans, with their state-of-the-art technology, could
prove more than a match for the North. All they have to do is start to devote
this amazing expertise and prowess towards weapon research and design and
production, towards military use.They could also withdraw from the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty (if they have already signed into) and build a
nuclear bomb in no time, if they wish.
What is certain, however, is that the Koreans in the north and south brothers
and sisters. The last thing they want is a fight, which no one will win
whatever the outcome.
The likely scenario after all the recent incidents (When Beijing told the
Americans and South Koreans not to stage military exercises near its
territory, and they obeyed; and the Japanese climb-down over the spat with
China over the detention of the Chinese supposely fishing boat captain who
allegedly tried to ram the Japanese patrol boat, after Beijing began to
dfisplay what looks like flexing of its muscles), would be the US aircraft
carriers -- the mainstay of the means of projection of American power -- would
have less and less space to maneuver unless something is done to check the
Chinese's advance and influence in the Asia-Pacific region, soon.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Beijing to not impede free
plying of cargo ships as well as warships through the China seas, she realized
it had to be done. Just a few months ago, the Chinese, to the dismay of many
stakeholders in the region, as well as the United States, announced a much
expanded economic zone reaching up to hundred of miles from its original
border, which they termed as China's core-value similar to Tibet. This was bad
news for China's neighbors, who all staked claims over all islands in the
China seas well within that economic zones. And there were already reports of
Chinese patrol boats visiting or even starting to build structures on these
islands.
Although China always assures its neighbors it means no harm, at the same
time it saw fit to widen their economic zone so wide it swallowed up all the
islands, rendering their claims over them meaningless, moot. What can they do?
Not much, actually. Look at Tibet. These people are in a dilemma and they know
it. This was why when a meeting, to be graced by none other than Hillary
Clinton, was held in Hanoi, recently, it was overwhelmingly subscribed. The
expectation of those present was for Washington to continue its role as the
Asia-Pacific power (as a counter-weight to China).
It remains to be seen, however, if the US still have the relish for this role.
At this point of time, Washington seems to be warming up to the idea or, at
least, not shying away from it (a role so consistent with being the so-called
world policeman).So when the US secretary of State dared to call on Beijing to
be reasonable and deals with its neighbors in a win-win manner, beside
allowing free flow of cargo-shipping through these international waters,the
participants were glad they heard what they came to hear from the mouth of
Hillary Clinton herself.
Also and it's an unlikely scenario which few dare to imagine, China might one
day after taking what transpired recently into consideration even be able to
blackmail Tokyo into limiting US aircraft carriers or warships from plying
through its waters. As I said, this seems unlikely as this will make Japanese
feel even more hemmed in, and who knows what they will do to protect their own
interests; or China may not be willing take the big risk of enraging the
superpower, at least for now, but it cannot be ruled out, especially in the
unpredictable future if Washington and Beijing were to come to blows, say,
over Taiwan, which Beijing regards as its another province waiting to be
reunited with the mainland, by force if necessary, or arms sales to Taipei, or
whatever.
And that spells trouble for American trade as well as prestige and leverage
which is needed in settling disputes or negotiating trade agreements. While
there is international law and court to refer to for judgement, more often
than not disputes are or have to be settled through negotiation.And in state-
to-state or state-to-corporation negotiation or disputes China needless to say
has the bargaining chips (because of its billion-strong market, which no
shrewd busniessman could resist). For example, during the dispute not long ago
between the Chinese government, which is sensitive about keeping certain
information deemed damaging to its hold on power from the Chinese public, and
the giant US company Google, which had been criticized internationally for
agreeing to censor search results for the Chinese market, over Google's
decision to stop censoring the search results, Google was strong enough to
prevail, given the money it was making then from the Chinese market was less
than US500m. It could walk away and set a good example of corporate
responsibility! In the end, however, greed got the better of Google's owners.
For what seemed like an eternity then the CEO of Google pondered and westled
with his conscience, including what Google could earn annually eventually if
it controlled even just half of the market of about now 400 million computer
users, while the whole world gasped in expectation, and the Chinese government
dreaded in silent, whether to do the right thing and right the wrong they did
to the Chinese activist who was jailed after Google caved-in to Beijing's
demand for information on the dissent. In the end, Google did what other
corporation would have done: It bowed to the Chinese government and reinstated
Google search results censor for its Chinese customers. Amazingly then google
chose to circumvent the Chinese restriction by diverting some search results
through its Hong Kong affiliate, or the like, thereby earning itself some
respite from human right group's rebuke. Nevertheless, I thought Google was
strong enough to say to the Chinese: "Bring it on!" If only the World #1
search engine could hold out for, say, a few more days who knows? what they
could get away with vis-a-vis the world's biggest market.But I was wrong.
Perhaps the Chinese recalcitrance proved too unnerving for Sergey Brin an
Larry Page. With brilliant minds, it didn't take them long to realize that
their pride almost cost them what they had achieved so far in China. Though
the annual turnover is nothing to shout about by their standard, it is still
start, a foothold, if you will, in the world's largest market, from which they
almost got kicked out. After that, working with the Chinese government or
obeying the rules set by them was like second nature to the two Google
billionaires.
In the recent dispute with Japan, China got the upper hand and could dictate
terms for the eventual settlement because of its size and clout.
Japan, which once ruled China for many years, on the other hand, like South
Korea, is militarily weak compared to China, the world's most populous nation,
and which has the largest standing army in the world.
Even though China didn't threaten to bomb Tokyo (like the North did against
Seoul), the fact cannot escape Prime Minister Kan's attention, that China has
nuclear weapon!
So far, if anything, China is only relying on its enormous market of billion
people to get its way in trade and technology disputes; but that doesn't mean
it won't employ other advantages it has to, for example, conclude favorable
trade agreements with other countries, joust with adversaries and win
every time, or lean on its smaller, weaker neighbors to settle the overlapping
claims over islands in the China Seas in its favor. Or,worse for the United
States, it could breathe down over the necks of these states to choose sides
between an unstoppable Chinese juggernaut and the declining super power.Your
guess is as good as mine which side they will choose.
But all is not lost for America. It can still redeem itself. But it's not
going to be easy, though, the damage had been done. When you don't keep your
promise to friends, don't follow through with your threat and rhetoric to
your enemies, you lose credibility and deterrence and deserve it. So, first,
you have to start by working with friends whom you threw under the bus.
Second, here is the harder part; the Chinese would be mad, raging mad, if the
US and South Korea were to stand firm in staging military maneuvers close to
their territory, though in international water. So would Putin and president
Dmitry Medvedev, if president Obama were to undo what can be described as his
hasty, if not unwise, decision to rescind the plan to station anti-Iran
missiles in Poland and other Eastern European countries. The Russians also
particularly bitterly opposes the admission of former Soviet states into NATO.
These states or republics are now in a limbo; they are viewed with anger by
the Russians, but left high and dry by the West. It remains to be seen if
Obama dares to work to get all these former Soviet republics admitted as Nato
members, which protects them from Russian intimidation. If he does, it will be
a major triumph for his foreign policy and presidency..
Look, actually, this redemption or amends, or whatever you call it, should
preferably be attempted by not Obama but other president. For Obama, the die
has been cast, he cannot go back to being tough with the Chinese, it's over.
The Chinese also would not lose too much face if it was a new administration
(like Sarah Palin's, for instance) that they have to deal with differently or
even climb down to a bit.
Do you all remember how friendly was China once to the United States during
Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's administration, especially the latter.
Even if there were differences of opinions or interests, and indeed there
were, including when congress introduced legislation plainly aimed at China,
China remained calm. And it never stopped or interfered with the frequent US
naval war games, although it might be unhappy with them if staged near its
maritime border. This was why when most countries were contemplating to
boycott the Beijing Olympic, President Bush disagreed and helped rally the
reluctant world to participate in what was billed as the best Games in the
history of the Olympic.
Back to the Korean skirmish.While the whole world is nervous about the
fighting between the two Koreas, fearing it might escalate into a full-blown
war, the North Koreans were probably breaking out their campaign, toasting to
their own provocative acts.
To be sure, they were not worried at all about the consequences of their
shelling of the island. After all, when they committed an even more serious act
of sinking a warship with loss of 47 sailors, they were not punished at all.
And this time, like previous time, the worse punishment they could expect is
Obama will dispatch aircraft-carrier USS George Washington to hold what the
North Koreans as well as the Chinese government and the rest of the world,
view as insignificant maneuvers with the South Koreans at or near the site.
And they can count on their master the Chinese to do the right thing (order
the carrier to leave or go to another location to complete their exercise!).
div>
war it fought against the Palestinians and Arabs so far, even though
outgunned. Everyone knows the Arabs love nothing more than to overrun the
Jewish state and throw every single Jew including babies into the sea, but
only it's not doable. The Israeli Defense Force is so strong; and it deters.
And the Israeli Government of whatever stripe means what they say, always.
That also deters. Unlike the Israelis who deter without even a shot being
fired, the United States today has to actually start hostilities to convince
it means business. So much for President Obama's goal of fixing of America's
foreign policy! If you think by kowtowing to the emperor of Japan, humbly
kissing the hand of the king of Saudi Arabia, giving in to Russian president
Dmitry Medvedev's (or Putin's?) demand that he cancels former president Bush's
decision to station anti-Iran missiles in central Europe, or sending a New
York imam Feisal Abdul Rauf -- who defied the majority Americans' demand he
cancel the project to build a mosque next to the hallowed Ground Zero and who
also claimed (but had since denied) the US had a hand in the Sept. 11
destruction of the twin towers, on goodwill mission to the Arab countries --
would bring much needed love and respect for America, you're wrong.
Until recent years, The word USA never failed to bring forth the feeling of
awe and love, if you will, in everyone (including may be even Osama bin
Ladin), for Uncle Sam. The success and prosperity of the American way of life
inspired and changed the world. Who gave us the computers and the internet?
The standards of the US Department of Drugs and Disease control, for instance,
are so trusted that Governments throughout the world would, when introducing
new medicine for the public, routinely cite: 'According to... or has been
approved by the American Department of...' ! Today, while he is still needed
as the World Policeman, despite many saying to the contrary, Uncle Sam is not
feared (and appreciated) as he used to be. It was not by accident that the US
became the world's only superpower. It 'had' what it takes to enter that
stratosphere that many nations, including former nemesis Russia, and China,
also like to occupy. Let's hope president Obama goes back to his drawing board
and then shows us what he's capable of, like when he disposed of Hillary
Clinton during the Democratic nomination primaries, and shows us the change we
can believe in; and for heaven's sake, please make full use of the power of
Commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces to get things done, like
how president Bill Clinton and president George W. Bush did, won't you, Mr.
President I'll pray for you to win another term so you can complete your
mission!
Toyota's recalls will not be its death knell
By Obama&HisLegacy
Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:34 AM
odd-newsrecallsdeath-knellpresent-day-toyotatoyota-of-the-80s
DISCUSS: 0 2 !
Type Your Article Here ...Toyota used to be good, real good when it was just
another car maker back in the 80s. I was one of its ardent admirers, and when
it was time I got a car I of course chose Toyota - Toyota Corolla. In those
days when first starting out we normally bought a second-hand. Among used cars
Corollas were the most sought after because of their proven reliability and
low maintenance, including fantastic resale value. Toyota cars, especially the
1.3 to 1.6 cc Corolla, back then where I lived, were so in demand that when
you asked a used-car dealer what he wanted for his Corolla and he told you his
price, you either accepted and signed the deal or walked away.No bargaining
was allowed. That's what I found out to my dismay when I chanced upon my (back
then everyone's) dream car - whether second-hand or new. I stormed out from
the dealer's office in disbelief as the price difference between us was a mere
$100! I couldn't believe that the man would hold back for the miserable sum
from another buyer. I then purposely lingered for almost an hour clearly
visible to the man in the office, hoping for him to change his mind and called
me back in to close the deal - but to no avail.
By Obama&HisLegacy
Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:34 AM
odd-newsrecallsdeath-knellpresent-day-toyotatoyota-of-the-80s
DISCUSS: 0 2 !
Type Your Article Here ...Toyota used to be good, real good when it was just
another car maker back in the 80s. I was one of its ardent admirers, and when
it was time I got a car I of course chose Toyota - Toyota Corolla. In those
days when first starting out we normally bought a second-hand. Among used cars
Corollas were the most sought after because of their proven reliability and
low maintenance, including fantastic resale value. Toyota cars, especially the
1.3 to 1.6 cc Corolla, back then where I lived, were so in demand that when
you asked a used-car dealer what he wanted for his Corolla and he told you his
price, you either accepted and signed the deal or walked away.No bargaining
was allowed. That's what I found out to my dismay when I chanced upon my (back
then everyone's) dream car - whether second-hand or new. I stormed out from
the dealer's office in disbelief as the price difference between us was a mere
$100! I couldn't believe that the man would hold back for the miserable sum
from another buyer. I then purposely lingered for almost an hour clearly
visible to the man in the office, hoping for him to change his mind and called
me back in to close the deal - but to no avail.
Such was the seeming confidence of the businessman on the resalabilty and
resale value of Toyota cars then that he was like, "Take it or leave
it!"
But then again, the 'mere $100' was not so mere in those when new cars cost a
mere few thousands. Despite the set back, I went on to own a Toyota - a
slightly newer model, on a hire-purchase arrangement. I sold off the car after
just a year, but can't recall why.Surprisingly, my next car was a Mitsubishi
Colt Galant. It was also a used car and the one that I used the longest. Five
years! And it was the car that I foolishly traded in for a new (yes, brand
new) corolla.
However, my joy in finally owning a brand new Toyota Corolla was short-lived.
Within a month after delivery it (the car) decided that I needed to unwind
after a hard day's work and what a better way than taking a dip in my own mini
swimming pool right in my car: so it started collecting water every time it
rained until my morphed car booth was filled to capacity!
When Toyota was informed, they didn't rush to apolgise or offer any
compensation. When pressed whether it could be fixed, they didn't give a
straight answer but mentioned that the car needed to be taken to head office
for investigation and rectification, if possible. Since I was left with zero
confidence then that the problem of rain water mysteriously entering the car
could ever be fixed, I had no choice but to agree to Toyota's offer to
exchange it for a another, newer model of Corollas which were coming on-stream
then.
Within a month after delivery it (the car) decided that I needed to unwind
after a hard day's work and what a better way than taking a dip in my own mini
swimming pool right in my car: so it started collecting water every time it
rained until my morphed car booth was filled to capacity!
When Toyota was informed, they didn't rush to apolgise or offer any
compensation. When pressed whether it could be fixed, they didn't give a
straight answer but mentioned that the car needed to be taken to head office
for investigation and rectification, if possible. Since I was left with zero
confidence then that the problem of rain water mysteriously entering the car
could ever be fixed, I had no choice but to agree to Toyota's offer to
exchange it for a another, newer model of Corollas which were coming on-stream
then.
I had agreed not because I was still fascinated with Toyota cars, I had no
choice; my plea to them for refund fell on deaf ear. As they say, too much
business is as bad as no business; it tends to make those who can't cope
become reckless and even arrogant. Once they have collected your deposit, in
cash or kind, you're in for a surprise, if not dilemma, depending on how
serious was the fault to your car. In my case, unfortunately it was the
latter. Before I agreed to sign on the dotted line next the phrase 'In good
condition' and drive away the new car in exchange for my defective Corolla, I
demanded to be allowed to test drive the car. To my horror, the moment I
stepped into the car I discovered the windshield wiper clearly attempted to
move but couldn't move; the clock or speedometer was not fucntioning; the
left-right indicators failed to work and lots of rubbish and debris made their
home under my carpets as though there had been a party held in my car. The
exterior was no better. The decorative 12 valve linings on both side of the
car showed signs of swelling or expansion due to rust. The Toyota
representative accompanying me noted everything but gave few explanations. May
be he couldn't. So he chose the easy way out - silent. As the car was only
assigned it still belonged to Toyota, I was not too worried. I demanded a new
unit - but they turned me down. I realized I was stuck then, my money was
already in their bag, so I tried my best to salvage things by being friendly
and pleaded with them to help me out. What else could I do?
choice; my plea to them for refund fell on deaf ear. As they say, too much
business is as bad as no business; it tends to make those who can't cope
become reckless and even arrogant. Once they have collected your deposit, in
cash or kind, you're in for a surprise, if not dilemma, depending on how
serious was the fault to your car. In my case, unfortunately it was the
latter. Before I agreed to sign on the dotted line next the phrase 'In good
condition' and drive away the new car in exchange for my defective Corolla, I
demanded to be allowed to test drive the car. To my horror, the moment I
stepped into the car I discovered the windshield wiper clearly attempted to
move but couldn't move; the clock or speedometer was not fucntioning; the
left-right indicators failed to work and lots of rubbish and debris made their
home under my carpets as though there had been a party held in my car. The
exterior was no better. The decorative 12 valve linings on both side of the
car showed signs of swelling or expansion due to rust. The Toyota
representative accompanying me noted everything but gave few explanations. May
be he couldn't. So he chose the easy way out - silent. As the car was only
assigned it still belonged to Toyota, I was not too worried. I demanded a new
unit - but they turned me down. I realized I was stuck then, my money was
already in their bag, so I tried my best to salvage things by being friendly
and pleaded with them to help me out. What else could I do?
I was in for another devastating jolt. None of my request for replacement of
all defective parts was met. They only offered to repair by improvising; the
wiper's arm with its main stem gear damaged will not be replaced but drilled
and held in place by a screw!; the speedometer was somehow fixed but could it
show the genuine speeds?, and the two side linings were removed to show
heavily rusted holes all over the areas where the linings were attached! These
were just some of the numerous defects found in my cars.If Toyota had
cooperated by replacing the four doors which could be executed easily instead
of engaging third party mechanics to improvise unsatisfactory repairs, I would
still be driving a Toyota today. If there was anybody who never learned from
their mistakes, it was Toyota. I was surprised when even after the above
missteps, they still had the audacity to write snail mail to ask if I would
choose a Toyota again next time!
all defective parts was met. They only offered to repair by improvising; the
wiper's arm with its main stem gear damaged will not be replaced but drilled
and held in place by a screw!; the speedometer was somehow fixed but could it
show the genuine speeds?, and the two side linings were removed to show
heavily rusted holes all over the areas where the linings were attached! These
were just some of the numerous defects found in my cars.If Toyota had
cooperated by replacing the four doors which could be executed easily instead
of engaging third party mechanics to improvise unsatisfactory repairs, I would
still be driving a Toyota today. If there was anybody who never learned from
their mistakes, it was Toyota. I was surprised when even after the above
missteps, they still had the audacity to write snail mail to ask if I would
choose a Toyota again next time!
But I digress. But, I admit, Toyota in 1980s was different from the present
Toyota: the latter had no role in inflicting those injustices on me and I hold
them to none. I am writing this article for one purpose: I want to help
(Toyota). My advice to Toyota if you want to be number one again, don't
shortchange even one customer. Having to recall millions after millions of its
defective vehicles is painful, necessary and will not be a death knell for
Toyota. Time will heal the wounds it inflicted on its customers (like me) and
there is no reason why they won't drive a Toyota again if the company
sincerely wants to mend its way and lives up to its responsibility. After I was
treated unfairly by Toyota then I vowed not to even glance at Toyota again;
but after reading so much about the recalls by Toyota since last year and its
seeming sincerity in not short-changing its customers, again, I have changed
my mind. Lord Buddha teaches forgiveness and I am his follower. In another
word, I can buy Toyota cars again!
Articles commented on by Obama&HisLegacy
Egypt protesters get US support for power transfer published on Fri Nov 25,
2011
Everything happens for a reason; first, President Obama wished to leave a
legacy to future generations to come; second, he copied Mao Tse Tung's
disastrous revolution hoping to fix the bugs, only to see his plans go out of
control. Like Mao, Obama thought he would be obeyed by his millions-strong 'R
Boat captain alleges actor Robert Wagner responsible for Natalie Wood's death
published on Fri Nov 18, 2011
Egypt protesters get US support for power transfer published on Fri Nov 25,
2011
Everything happens for a reason; first, President Obama wished to leave a
legacy to future generations to come; second, he copied Mao Tse Tung's
disastrous revolution hoping to fix the bugs, only to see his plans go out of
control. Like Mao, Obama thought he would be obeyed by his millions-strong 'R
Boat captain alleges actor Robert Wagner responsible for Natalie Wood's death
published on Fri Nov 18, 2011
Jemma77, Nice work. You, or your piece, is good enough for a book prize winner
of the year. But in the process of winning you may also step on many toes -
all big toes, if you will. As you mentioned Robert Wagner was indeed a
powerful person. If he could overrule the sheriff then, he could overrule
Is Qaddafi finished? published on Sun Aug 21, 2011
Chris-735081 The family's of 259 men, women and children who died in the
Lockerbie bombing might take issue with that statement, you say? Well; may be
they would; may be they wouldn't. May be they have got enough compensation
from the col. so they left him very much alone after getting their hands
Israeli websites back up after 'malfunction' published on Mon Nov 07, 2011
I almost couldn't believe my eyes when I read that the Israeli websites, all
the more, the Mossad and other slick spy agencies, were down, due to
'Technical Malfunction.' Even if they were brought down - never mind by whom -
don't expect the Israelis to admit it. The last thing they want to do is t
Libyan fighters shell Sirte in fresh assault on Gadhafi hometown published on
Sat Oct 08, 2011
of the year. But in the process of winning you may also step on many toes -
all big toes, if you will. As you mentioned Robert Wagner was indeed a
powerful person. If he could overrule the sheriff then, he could overrule
Is Qaddafi finished? published on Sun Aug 21, 2011
Chris-735081 The family's of 259 men, women and children who died in the
Lockerbie bombing might take issue with that statement, you say? Well; may be
they would; may be they wouldn't. May be they have got enough compensation
from the col. so they left him very much alone after getting their hands
Israeli websites back up after 'malfunction' published on Mon Nov 07, 2011
I almost couldn't believe my eyes when I read that the Israeli websites, all
the more, the Mossad and other slick spy agencies, were down, due to
'Technical Malfunction.' Even if they were brought down - never mind by whom -
don't expect the Israelis to admit it. The last thing they want to do is t
Libyan fighters shell Sirte in fresh assault on Gadhafi hometown published on
Sat Oct 08, 2011
jim-1662986, I couldn't agree more with your view. Before we went into Libya,
President Obama neatly staged his Oscar-worthy melodrama about a looming
disaster to befall the Eastern Libyans. Up to seventy thousands people 'could
be killed' if Col. Qaddafi carried out his threat to search room-to-room
Palestinian leader asks UN for statehood published on Fri Sep 23, 2011
juliop-4101035 The word or shall we say name, Philistines, was the crteation
of the Romans. We all cannot argue over that. There were no Arab Palestinians
during or before the Roman rule. We have to agree to that too. The Arabs came
to rule after the Romans left and during the Ottoman Empire and Mo
Beyond Cairo, Israel sensing a wider siege published on Sun Sep 11, 2011
I think most of the writers on this panel are either crazy, ignorant, hateful
towards the Jews, are Palestinians or Arabs in disguise; liberal Obama
supporters who have certain grievances against the Jews, to come out with such
weird statements. Their views against Israel are full of venom but no tr
little ladv, Whenever there is an issue about Israel although the level of the
issue is not about the issue of Israel stealing Palestinian lands or homes,
some people simply can't resist harping on the fact that Israel was created by
the United Nation in 1947-48. Meaning - the creation of Israel equal
little ladv, Whenever there is an issue about Israel although the level of the
issue is not about the issue of Israel stealing Palestinian lands or homes,
some people simply can't resist harping on the fact that Israel was created by
the United Nation in 1947-48. Meaning - the creation of Israel equal
Egyptians break into Israeli Embassy in Cairo published on Sat Sep 10, 2011
Christian Soldier-3554481, with 14 Reply , You're not surprised, are you? Me, I
have been dreading this day will come; it's here! When I read President Obama
himself made it his business to grapple with this mayhem, I am not surprised,
too. He's partly to blame.It took a lot to come to this. This did
SHOW PROFILE
President Obama neatly staged his Oscar-worthy melodrama about a looming
disaster to befall the Eastern Libyans. Up to seventy thousands people 'could
be killed' if Col. Qaddafi carried out his threat to search room-to-room
Palestinian leader asks UN for statehood published on Fri Sep 23, 2011
juliop-4101035 The word or shall we say name, Philistines, was the crteation
of the Romans. We all cannot argue over that. There were no Arab Palestinians
during or before the Roman rule. We have to agree to that too. The Arabs came
to rule after the Romans left and during the Ottoman Empire and Mo
Beyond Cairo, Israel sensing a wider siege published on Sun Sep 11, 2011
I think most of the writers on this panel are either crazy, ignorant, hateful
towards the Jews, are Palestinians or Arabs in disguise; liberal Obama
supporters who have certain grievances against the Jews, to come out with such
weird statements. Their views against Israel are full of venom but no tr
little ladv, Whenever there is an issue about Israel although the level of the
issue is not about the issue of Israel stealing Palestinian lands or homes,
some people simply can't resist harping on the fact that Israel was created by
the United Nation in 1947-48. Meaning - the creation of Israel equal
little ladv, Whenever there is an issue about Israel although the level of the
issue is not about the issue of Israel stealing Palestinian lands or homes,
some people simply can't resist harping on the fact that Israel was created by
the United Nation in 1947-48. Meaning - the creation of Israel equal
Egyptians break into Israeli Embassy in Cairo published on Sat Sep 10, 2011
Christian Soldier-3554481, with 14 Reply , You're not surprised, are you? Me, I
have been dreading this day will come; it's here! When I read President Obama
himself made it his business to grapple with this mayhem, I am not surprised,
too. He's partly to blame.It took a lot to come to this. This did
SHOW PROFILE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment