|
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
Canuck57 wrote:
On 20/05/2011 8:50 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 20/05/2011 4:53 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:35:44 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 19/05/2011 5:28 PM, L G wrote: John H wrote: ....if enough people see this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdSc...layer_embedded Obama made some great points here. Wonder what happened? Typical liberal spin. They NEVER admit when they are wrong unless it's in a deposition and that's debatable. Even Anderson on 360 tonight sounded a little annoyed at Obama really taking a lot of time to saying nothing at all today. What he said was he is selling out Israel. He is reacting to the new reality what is coming out of all the Arab "freedom". We are running out of friends there. the Saudis and Pakistanis are negotiating with China now, looking for a better partner. The Palestinians are saying that they are going to start non-violent protests like the Egyptians and Libyans used and make the Israelis shoot them to make them stop. They are seeing that may actually be more effective than rocks or even rockets. The real question is if they can hold Hamas back. Aipac has put a target on Obama's back tho and that may actually be the best chance of a GOP victory. A GOP victory in 2012? Well, I guess anything is possible. I would enjoy seeing Michele Bachmann on the ticket. Who knows, Hank Johnson could be VP right? Who? This democratic idiot -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCTYsmz8ook That guy is so ****ing stupid it cracks me up every time I see that! |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 20/05/2011 8:50 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 20/05/2011 4:53 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:35:44 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 19/05/2011 5:28 PM, L G wrote: John H wrote: ....if enough people see this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdSc...layer_embedded Obama made some great points here. Wonder what happened? Typical liberal spin. They NEVER admit when they are wrong unless it's in a deposition and that's debatable. Even Anderson on 360 tonight sounded a little annoyed at Obama really taking a lot of time to saying nothing at all today. What he said was he is selling out Israel. He is reacting to the new reality what is coming out of all the Arab "freedom". We are running out of friends there. the Saudis and Pakistanis are negotiating with China now, looking for a better partner. The Palestinians are saying that they are going to start non-violent protests like the Egyptians and Libyans used and make the Israelis shoot them to make them stop. They are seeing that may actually be more effective than rocks or even rockets. The real question is if they can hold Hamas back. Aipac has put a target on Obama's back tho and that may actually be the best chance of a GOP victory. A GOP victory in 2012? Well, I guess anything is possible. I would enjoy seeing Michele Bachmann on the ticket. Who knows, Hank Johnson could be VP right? Who? This democratic idiot -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCTYsmz8ook You mean when he said the island might tip over and capsize? If you took that literally, you are a bigger fool than you think Johnson is. He had an obvious twinkle in his eye when he said it. Bull****. He's a dumbass. No politician would use a forum like that to joke around. Nice try. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
Canuck57 wrote:
On 20/05/2011 9:49 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 20/05/2011 8:50 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 20/05/2011 4:53 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:35:44 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 19/05/2011 5:28 PM, L G wrote: John H wrote: ....if enough people see this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdSc...layer_embedded Obama made some great points here. Wonder what happened? Typical liberal spin. They NEVER admit when they are wrong unless it's in a deposition and that's debatable. Even Anderson on 360 tonight sounded a little annoyed at Obama really taking a lot of time to saying nothing at all today. What he said was he is selling out Israel. He is reacting to the new reality what is coming out of all the Arab "freedom". We are running out of friends there. the Saudis and Pakistanis are negotiating with China now, looking for a better partner. The Palestinians are saying that they are going to start non-violent protests like the Egyptians and Libyans used and make the Israelis shoot them to make them stop. They are seeing that may actually be more effective than rocks or even rockets. The real question is if they can hold Hamas back. Aipac has put a target on Obama's back tho and that may actually be the best chance of a GOP victory. A GOP victory in 2012? Well, I guess anything is possible. I would enjoy seeing Michele Bachmann on the ticket. Who knows, Hank Johnson could be VP right? Who? This democratic idiot -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCTYsmz8ook You mean when he said the island might tip over and capsize? If you took that literally, you are a bigger fool than you think Johnson is. He had an obvious twinkle in his eye when he said it. Face it, if he was white-GOP you would be all over him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuZFT76uxoc&NR=1 Pretty obvious this representative uses his race and the race card to get elected. Forrest Gump comes off better. Hank needs a drug test. He's not articulate - he's delusional at best but more likely just dumb. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 20/05/2011 9:49 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 20/05/2011 8:50 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 20/05/2011 4:53 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:35:44 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 19/05/2011 5:28 PM, L G wrote: John H wrote: ....if enough people see this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdSc...layer_embedded Obama made some great points here. Wonder what happened? Typical liberal spin. They NEVER admit when they are wrong unless it's in a deposition and that's debatable. Even Anderson on 360 tonight sounded a little annoyed at Obama really taking a lot of time to saying nothing at all today. What he said was he is selling out Israel. He is reacting to the new reality what is coming out of all the Arab "freedom". We are running out of friends there. the Saudis and Pakistanis are negotiating with China now, looking for a better partner. The Palestinians are saying that they are going to start non-violent protests like the Egyptians and Libyans used and make the Israelis shoot them to make them stop. They are seeing that may actually be more effective than rocks or even rockets. The real question is if they can hold Hamas back. Aipac has put a target on Obama's back tho and that may actually be the best chance of a GOP victory. A GOP victory in 2012? Well, I guess anything is possible. I would enjoy seeing Michele Bachmann on the ticket. Who knows, Hank Johnson could be VP right? Who? This democratic idiot -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCTYsmz8ook You mean when he said the island might tip over and capsize? If you took that literally, you are a bigger fool than you think Johnson is. He had an obvious twinkle in his eye when he said it. Face it, if he was white-GOP you would be all over him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuZFT76uxoc&NR=1 Pretty obvious this representative uses his race and the race card to get elected. Forrest Gump comes off better. Hank needs a drug test. If you weren't a racist, you wouldn't be so eager to go after black legislators. If Bachmann, Palin, et cetera, were black GOP'ers, I'd still point out they were idiots. You just contradicted yourself, professional writer. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
Harryk wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:36:20 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 06:53:57 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:35:44 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 19/05/2011 5:28 PM, L G wrote: John H wrote: ....if enough people see this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdSc...layer_embedded Obama made some great points here. Wonder what happened? Typical liberal spin. They NEVER admit when they are wrong unless it's in a deposition and that's debatable. Even Anderson on 360 tonight sounded a little annoyed at Obama really taking a lot of time to saying nothing at all today. What he said was he is selling out Israel. He is reacting to the new reality what is coming out of all the Arab "freedom". We are running out of friends there. the Saudis and Pakistanis are negotiating with China now, looking for a better partner. The Palestinians are saying that they are going to start non-violent protests like the Egyptians and Libyans used and make the Israelis shoot them to make them stop. They are seeing that may actually be more effective than rocks or even rockets. The real question is if they can hold Hamas back. Aipac has put a target on Obama's back tho and that may actually be the best chance of a GOP victory. A GOP victory in 2012? Well, I guess anything is possible. I would enjoy seeing Michele Bachmann on the ticket. I expect that in the end we will see the typical GOP white guy with a solid neocon pedigree who will promise to keep the wars going on in the middle east, all the while, complaining about runaway government spending and the soaring price of oil. I still would not be surprised if Obama got a primary challenge. In politics, 18 months is an eternity and a lot can happen. In the GOP, the question most interesting to me is whether the nominee will be someone near reasonable, such as Romney, Pawlenty, et cetera, or whether it will be one of the teabagger crazy types. I am *so* hoping for Michele Bachmann to be on the ticket. :) 2012 may pretty much be it for the GOP as a party competitive in the presidential race. Shifting demographics and the hate the GOP'ers have and express for the growing numbers of minority groups *and* the craziness of the teabaggers may well spell the end. I don't see any *serious* primary challengers on the horizon for Obama. Sure, someone might run in a couple of them, just for the hell of it, but a serious challenger, meaning one who might have a chance of unseating Obama? Naw. If someone was going to take a swing at Obama from his side I would expect it to be Hillary or someone from her camp like Schumer. Maybe even a wild card like Debbie. You need a neocon liberal. (A socialist hawk) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? If Biden decides to retire, she'd be at the top of my list...smart, articulate, Floridian, liberal, and the perfect intellectual foil for GOP dumb bunnies like Palin and Bachmann. Of course, she's Jewish...having a female Jewish veep candidate on the ticket with a Kenyan-born Muslim...well, she won't get the teabagger vote. :) She is hardly articulate. She is a hard-core lefty with a speech impediment. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On Fri, 20 May 2011 21:41:06 -0400, L G
wrote: Harryk wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:36:20 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 06:53:57 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:35:44 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 19/05/2011 5:28 PM, L G wrote: John H wrote: ....if enough people see this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdSc...layer_embedded Obama made some great points here. Wonder what happened? Typical liberal spin. They NEVER admit when they are wrong unless it's in a deposition and that's debatable. Even Anderson on 360 tonight sounded a little annoyed at Obama really taking a lot of time to saying nothing at all today. What he said was he is selling out Israel. He is reacting to the new reality what is coming out of all the Arab "freedom". We are running out of friends there. the Saudis and Pakistanis are negotiating with China now, looking for a better partner. The Palestinians are saying that they are going to start non-violent protests like the Egyptians and Libyans used and make the Israelis shoot them to make them stop. They are seeing that may actually be more effective than rocks or even rockets. The real question is if they can hold Hamas back. Aipac has put a target on Obama's back tho and that may actually be the best chance of a GOP victory. A GOP victory in 2012? Well, I guess anything is possible. I would enjoy seeing Michele Bachmann on the ticket. I expect that in the end we will see the typical GOP white guy with a solid neocon pedigree who will promise to keep the wars going on in the middle east, all the while, complaining about runaway government spending and the soaring price of oil. I still would not be surprised if Obama got a primary challenge. In politics, 18 months is an eternity and a lot can happen. In the GOP, the question most interesting to me is whether the nominee will be someone near reasonable, such as Romney, Pawlenty, et cetera, or whether it will be one of the teabagger crazy types. I am *so* hoping for Michele Bachmann to be on the ticket. :) 2012 may pretty much be it for the GOP as a party competitive in the presidential race. Shifting demographics and the hate the GOP'ers have and express for the growing numbers of minority groups *and* the craziness of the teabaggers may well spell the end. I don't see any *serious* primary challengers on the horizon for Obama. Sure, someone might run in a couple of them, just for the hell of it, but a serious challenger, meaning one who might have a chance of unseating Obama? Naw. If someone was going to take a swing at Obama from his side I would expect it to be Hillary or someone from her camp like Schumer. Maybe even a wild card like Debbie. You need a neocon liberal. (A socialist hawk) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? If Biden decides to retire, she'd be at the top of my list...smart, articulate, Floridian, liberal, and the perfect intellectual foil for GOP dumb bunnies like Palin and Bachmann. Of course, she's Jewish...having a female Jewish veep candidate on the ticket with a Kenyan-born Muslim...well, she won't get the teabagger vote. :) She is hardly articulate. She is a hard-core lefty with a speech impediment. You're a racist, misogynistic little **** of human being. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On 5/20/2011 10:44 PM, wrote:
You're a racist, misogynistic little **** of human being. Ah! your autobiography. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On 5/20/2011 12:35 PM, wrote:
Oh wait, I forgot, you'd rather hide than have a civil discussion. On Fri, 20 May 2011 21:41:06 -0400, L G wrote: Harryk wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:36:20 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 06:53:57 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:35:44 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 19/05/2011 5:28 PM, L G wrote: John H wrote: ....if enough people see this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdSc...layer_embedded Obama made some great points here. Wonder what happened? Typical liberal spin. They NEVER admit when they are wrong unless it's in a deposition and that's debatable. Even Anderson on 360 tonight sounded a little annoyed at Obama really taking a lot of time to saying nothing at all today. What he said was he is selling out Israel. He is reacting to the new reality what is coming out of all the Arab "freedom". We are running out of friends there. the Saudis and Pakistanis are negotiating with China now, looking for a better partner. The Palestinians are saying that they are going to start non-violent protests like the Egyptians and Libyans used and make the Israelis shoot them to make them stop. They are seeing that may actually be more effective than rocks or even rockets. The real question is if they can hold Hamas back. Aipac has put a target on Obama's back tho and that may actually be the best chance of a GOP victory. A GOP victory in 2012? Well, I guess anything is possible. I would enjoy seeing Michele Bachmann on the ticket. I expect that in the end we will see the typical GOP white guy with a solid neocon pedigree who will promise to keep the wars going on in the middle east, all the while, complaining about runaway government spending and the soaring price of oil. I still would not be surprised if Obama got a primary challenge. In politics, 18 months is an eternity and a lot can happen. In the GOP, the question most interesting to me is whether the nominee will be someone near reasonable, such as Romney, Pawlenty, et cetera, or whether it will be one of the teabagger crazy types. I am *so* hoping for Michele Bachmann to be on the ticket. :) 2012 may pretty much be it for the GOP as a party competitive in the presidential race. Shifting demographics and the hate the GOP'ers have and express for the growing numbers of minority groups *and* the craziness of the teabaggers may well spell the end. I don't see any *serious* primary challengers on the horizon for Obama. Sure, someone might run in a couple of them, just for the hell of it, but a serious challenger, meaning one who might have a chance of unseating Obama? Naw. If someone was going to take a swing at Obama from his side I would expect it to be Hillary or someone from her camp like Schumer. Maybe even a wild card like Debbie. You need a neocon liberal. (A socialist hawk) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? If Biden decides to retire, she'd be at the top of my list...smart, articulate, Floridian, liberal, and the perfect intellectual foil for GOP dumb bunnies like Palin and Bachmann. Of course, she's Jewish...having a female Jewish veep candidate on the ticket with a Kenyan-born Muslim...well, she won't get the teabagger vote. :) She is hardly articulate. She is a hard-core lefty with a speech impediment. Poor baby! |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On 5/20/2011 2:43 PM, wrote:
She is one awesome chick! Right now would be a good time. You are gay, I presume. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On 20/05/2011 7:18 PM, L G wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 19/05/2011 2:05 PM, Harryk wrote: Gene wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2011 12:40:06 -0600, wrote: On 19/05/2011 6:49 AM, Harryk wrote: John H wrote: ...if enough people see this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdSc...layer_embedded Obama made some great points here. Wonder what happened? Have you bought that big new camper yet? Harry, face it, Obama is a two faced LIAR. Maybe Obama should give up his 8 mpg GM, my F150 Lariat gets 20 mpg. My full size Chevy pickup with 4WD gets over 10% better than that.... and its gasoline powered.... Are you talking about the highly bullet resistant presidential SUVs that we see rolling around DC? They're not your standard SUVs... In the clip I saw on TV, Obama looks like a fish out of water with interactive questions. Really stepped in it when he suggested all those 8 mpg truck and SUV owners should buy a new one. Obama has **** for brains. Go out and spend $40K on a lemon Volt? That is one hell of a lot of gasoline and the A/C works in the truck. Looks like Obama's Illinois buddy democrat Rod Blagojevich is back in court again, some now charges. He didn't have a teleprompter for the Q&A. Ah, puppet without his strings. -- Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance? |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:00 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:55:16 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat and Mubarak were basically the same guy (Egyptian military buddies) and they both signed on to the Carter deal. I imagine the assassins wanted to kill him too. (he was slightly wounded) The open question is what is going to happen when this gets tossed back to the Egyptian people who may be guided by the Muslim brotherhood (if we can't elevate another US friendly military dictator to power) and I doubt we have that kind of influence today. Right wing nonsense. Nobody including the MB wants violence. They're renounced it in public more than a few times. Of course, you're just interested in your own right-wing agenda of a fear-based foreign policy. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
In article ,
says... wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat got his ass handed to him in 1973 and knew that his Soviet equipment was useless. As Greg said his deal with Israel got him new equipment, training and billions of dollars. Mubarak could have been seeing all of the money coming in and decided that he wanted to line his pockets rather than let Sadat pad his families pockets. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
In article ,
says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:55:16 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat and Mubarak were basically the same guy (Egyptian military buddies) and they both signed on to the Carter deal. I imagine the assassins wanted to kill him too. (he was slightly wounded) The open question is what is going to happen when this gets tossed back to the Egyptian people who may be guided by the Muslim brotherhood (if we can't elevate another US friendly military dictator to power) and I doubt we have that kind of influence today. Right wing nonsense. Nobody including the MB wants violence. They're renounced it in public more than a few times. You are either stupid or naieve or both. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a country and Egypt is up for grabs right now. Of course, you're just interested in your own right-wing agenda of a fear-based foreign policy. Foreign policy is rooted in national security. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:15:24 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:55:16 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat and Mubarak were basically the same guy (Egyptian military buddies) and they both signed on to the Carter deal. I imagine the assassins wanted to kill him too. (he was slightly wounded) The open question is what is going to happen when this gets tossed back to the Egyptian people who may be guided by the Muslim brotherhood (if we can't elevate another US friendly military dictator to power) and I doubt we have that kind of influence today. Right wing nonsense. Nobody including the MB wants violence. They're renounced it in public more than a few times. You are either stupid or naieve or both. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a country and Egypt is up for grabs right now. Of course, you're just interested in your own right-wing agenda of a fear-based foreign policy. Foreign policy is rooted in national security. The MB has renounced violence. Sorry if that disturbs your distorted view of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood Foreign policy is certainly rooted in national security, but it not rooted in right wing extremism, which is what you promote. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:13:13 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat got his ass handed to him in 1973 and knew that his Soviet equipment was useless. As Greg said his deal with Israel got him new equipment, training and billions of dollars. Mubarak could have been seeing all of the money coming in and decided that he wanted to line his pockets rather than let Sadat pad his families pockets. It also ushered in a lasting peace between two countries at each other's throats. I have no idea what point you're trying to make about Mubarak. He didn't take over in a coup d'état. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
In article ,
says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:15:24 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:55:16 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat and Mubarak were basically the same guy (Egyptian military buddies) and they both signed on to the Carter deal. I imagine the assassins wanted to kill him too. (he was slightly wounded) The open question is what is going to happen when this gets tossed back to the Egyptian people who may be guided by the Muslim brotherhood (if we can't elevate another US friendly military dictator to power) and I doubt we have that kind of influence today. Right wing nonsense. Nobody including the MB wants violence. They're renounced it in public more than a few times. You are either stupid or naieve or both. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a country and Egypt is up for grabs right now. Of course, you're just interested in your own right-wing agenda of a fear-based foreign policy. Foreign policy is rooted in national security. The MB has renounced violence. Sorry if that disturbs your distorted view of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood If you want to believe them your are free to do so. The rest of the world does not trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Foreign policy is certainly rooted in national security, but it not rooted in right wing extremism, which is what you promote. I promote American exceptionalism. The USA is the greatest country the Earth has ever known. Why does every country steal from us? |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
In article ,
says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:13:13 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat got his ass handed to him in 1973 and knew that his Soviet equipment was useless. As Greg said his deal with Israel got him new equipment, training and billions of dollars. Mubarak could have been seeing all of the money coming in and decided that he wanted to line his pockets rather than let Sadat pad his families pockets. It also ushered in a lasting peace between two countries at each other's throats. Peace is usually what happens after you get your ass kicked by another country. I have no idea what point you're trying to make about Mubarak. He didn't take over in a coup d'état. Who lead the coup? |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
BAR wrote:
In , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:15:24 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:55:16 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat and Mubarak were basically the same guy (Egyptian military buddies) and they both signed on to the Carter deal. I imagine the assassins wanted to kill him too. (he was slightly wounded) The open question is what is going to happen when this gets tossed back to the Egyptian people who may be guided by the Muslim brotherhood (if we can't elevate another US friendly military dictator to power) and I doubt we have that kind of influence today. Right wing nonsense. Nobody including the MB wants violence. They're renounced it in public more than a few times. You are either stupid or naieve or both. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a country and Egypt is up for grabs right now. Of course, you're just interested in your own right-wing agenda of a fear-based foreign policy. Foreign policy is rooted in national security. The MB has renounced violence. Sorry if that disturbs your distorted view of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood If you want to believe them your are free to do so. The rest of the world does not trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Foreign policy is certainly rooted in national security, but it not rooted in right wing extremism, which is what you promote. I promote American exceptionalism. The USA is the greatest country the Earth has ever known. It was for a while, until greed took over in 1981. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:54:18 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:15:24 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:55:16 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat and Mubarak were basically the same guy (Egyptian military buddies) and they both signed on to the Carter deal. I imagine the assassins wanted to kill him too. (he was slightly wounded) The open question is what is going to happen when this gets tossed back to the Egyptian people who may be guided by the Muslim brotherhood (if we can't elevate another US friendly military dictator to power) and I doubt we have that kind of influence today. Right wing nonsense. Nobody including the MB wants violence. They're renounced it in public more than a few times. You are either stupid or naieve or both. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a country and Egypt is up for grabs right now. Of course, you're just interested in your own right-wing agenda of a fear-based foreign policy. Foreign policy is rooted in national security. The MB has renounced violence. Sorry if that disturbs your distorted view of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood If you want to believe them your are free to do so. The rest of the world does not trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Really? The whole rest of the world? Every single person? Please show us some recent example of how they've betrayed that position. Foreign policy is certainly rooted in national security, but it not rooted in right wing extremism, which is what you promote. I promote American exceptionalism. The USA is the greatest country the Earth has ever known. Why does every country steal from us? With great power comes great responsibility. But, it seems you believe that everyone should do everything we want them to do, even if it might not be in their best interest. Really... steal from us? Sounds like paranoia to me. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:55:59 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:13:13 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat got his ass handed to him in 1973 and knew that his Soviet equipment was useless. As Greg said his deal with Israel got him new equipment, training and billions of dollars. Mubarak could have been seeing all of the money coming in and decided that he wanted to line his pockets rather than let Sadat pad his families pockets. It also ushered in a lasting peace between two countries at each other's throats. Peace is usually what happens after you get your ass kicked by another country. So, that's your method maintaining peace... beat up on everyone else? Sheesh. I have no idea what point you're trying to make about Mubarak. He didn't take over in a coup d'état. Who lead the coup? There was no coup. Do you have the ability to Google? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:54:18 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:15:24 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:55:16 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat and Mubarak were basically the same guy (Egyptian military buddies) and they both signed on to the Carter deal. I imagine the assassins wanted to kill him too. (he was slightly wounded) The open question is what is going to happen when this gets tossed back to the Egyptian people who may be guided by the Muslim brotherhood (if we can't elevate another US friendly military dictator to power) and I doubt we have that kind of influence today. Right wing nonsense. Nobody including the MB wants violence. They're renounced it in public more than a few times. You are either stupid or naieve or both. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a country and Egypt is up for grabs right now. Of course, you're just interested in your own right-wing agenda of a fear-based foreign policy. Foreign policy is rooted in national security. The MB has renounced violence. Sorry if that disturbs your distorted view of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood If you want to believe them your are free to do so. The rest of the world does not trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Really? The whole rest of the world? Every single person? Please show us some recent example of how they've betrayed that position. Foreign policy is certainly rooted in national security, but it not rooted in right wing extremism, which is what you promote. I promote American exceptionalism. The USA is the greatest country the Earth has ever known. Why does every country steal from us? With great power comes great responsibility. But, it seems you believe that everyone should do everything we want them to do, even if it might not be in their best interest. Really... steal from us? Sounds like paranoia to me. I doubt he even knows the full breadth of the term. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
In article , naled24511
@mypacks.net says... BAR wrote: In , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:15:24 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:55:16 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat and Mubarak were basically the same guy (Egyptian military buddies) and they both signed on to the Carter deal. I imagine the assassins wanted to kill him too. (he was slightly wounded) The open question is what is going to happen when this gets tossed back to the Egyptian people who may be guided by the Muslim brotherhood (if we can't elevate another US friendly military dictator to power) and I doubt we have that kind of influence today. Right wing nonsense. Nobody including the MB wants violence. They're renounced it in public more than a few times. You are either stupid or naieve or both. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a country and Egypt is up for grabs right now. Of course, you're just interested in your own right-wing agenda of a fear-based foreign policy. Foreign policy is rooted in national security. The MB has renounced violence. Sorry if that disturbs your distorted view of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood If you want to believe them your are free to do so. The rest of the world does not trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Foreign policy is certainly rooted in national security, but it not rooted in right wing extremism, which is what you promote. I promote American exceptionalism. The USA is the greatest country the Earth has ever known. It was for a while, until greed took over in 1981. Have you ever had a non political thought in your life? |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
In article ,
says... In article , naled24511 @mypacks.net says... BAR wrote: In , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:15:24 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:55:16 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat and Mubarak were basically the same guy (Egyptian military buddies) and they both signed on to the Carter deal. I imagine the assassins wanted to kill him too. (he was slightly wounded) The open question is what is going to happen when this gets tossed back to the Egyptian people who may be guided by the Muslim brotherhood (if we can't elevate another US friendly military dictator to power) and I doubt we have that kind of influence today. Right wing nonsense. Nobody including the MB wants violence. They're renounced it in public more than a few times. You are either stupid or naieve or both. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a country and Egypt is up for grabs right now. Of course, you're just interested in your own right-wing agenda of a fear-based foreign policy. Foreign policy is rooted in national security. The MB has renounced violence. Sorry if that disturbs your distorted view of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood If you want to believe them your are free to do so. The rest of the world does not trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Foreign policy is certainly rooted in national security, but it not rooted in right wing extremism, which is what you promote. I promote American exceptionalism. The USA is the greatest country the Earth has ever known. It was for a while, until greed took over in 1981. Have you ever had a non political thought in your life? Well yes, he posts stuff designed to shame, bully and disgust opposing views from groups. When he goes too far, he cries to the cops like he did last week to me.. Be careful if you don't want your day interrupted by this cowardly piece of human feces... -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
In article ,
says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:55:59 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:13:13 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat got his ass handed to him in 1973 and knew that his Soviet equipment was useless. As Greg said his deal with Israel got him new equipment, training and billions of dollars. Mubarak could have been seeing all of the money coming in and decided that he wanted to line his pockets rather than let Sadat pad his families pockets. It also ushered in a lasting peace between two countries at each other's throats. Peace is usually what happens after you get your ass kicked by another country. So, that's your method maintaining peace... beat up on everyone else? Sheesh. Peace does not come from mutual respect it comes from fear of getting your ass kicked or from recently having your ass kicked. I have no idea what point you're trying to make about Mubarak. He didn't take over in a coup d'état. Who lead the coup? There was no coup. Do you have the ability to Google? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak Mubarak took power after a failed coup. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On 20/05/2011 7:30 PM, L G wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 20/05/2011 9:05 AM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 06:53:57 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:35:44 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 19/05/2011 5:28 PM, L G wrote: John H wrote: ....if enough people see this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdSc...layer_embedded Obama made some great points here. Wonder what happened? Typical liberal spin. They NEVER admit when they are wrong unless it's in a deposition and that's debatable. Even Anderson on 360 tonight sounded a little annoyed at Obama really taking a lot of time to saying nothing at all today. What he said was he is selling out Israel. He is reacting to the new reality what is coming out of all the Arab "freedom". We are running out of friends there. the Saudis and Pakistanis are negotiating with China now, looking for a better partner. The Palestinians are saying that they are going to start non-violent protests like the Egyptians and Libyans used and make the Israelis shoot them to make them stop. They are seeing that may actually be more effective than rocks or even rockets. The real question is if they can hold Hamas back. Aipac has put a target on Obama's back tho and that may actually be the best chance of a GOP victory. A GOP victory in 2012? Well, I guess anything is possible. I would enjoy seeing Michele Bachmann on the ticket. I expect that in the end we will see the typical GOP white guy with a solid neocon pedigree who will promise to keep the wars going on in the middle east, all the while, complaining about runaway government spending and the soaring price of oil. I still would not be surprised if Obama got a primary challenge. In politics, 18 months is an eternity and a lot can happen. Sound like Obama, even though you say GOP. Money will decide the ponies you get to choose from. Sad part about party politics is that it allows few people to pick who you can vote for, a ruse. Quasi democracy at best. In Obama's case, he leaned on the uninformed for his votes. When the free cars and mortgage payments didn't happen he lost them. We will see, I always wondered how Hank Johnson ever got elected. -- Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance? |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On 21/05/2011 8:02 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I doubt China and Russia care much about Israel other than the possibility of arms sales. But who knows, when your biggest ally screws you around, maybe Israel will sell tech to China. Mubarak was betrayed by Obama, few know he was elected and the day before his stepping down, he actually had more public support in Egypt than Obama had in the USA. Obama was a freaking hypocrite here, totally destroying US relationships in the area save Saudi. But the Saudi are not stupid, they know Obama can't be trusted. Eygypt still hasn't had its elections, and lets hope they do have the regularily scheduled elections in September. What I fear with all of this is Obama has really set the stage for an Islamic united nations under the Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood is involved in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria. Yet Obama backs them even though many have al Queda ties. No mention of the 100+ dead Christians in Egypt either. Or the 1000's of thousands fleaing in Ivory Costs from the new UN imposed Muslim leader. But lets assume Obama's objectives are not for the furthermost of Islamic radicalism (which I think is a real possibility) then what is the motive? Put the middle east into anarchy? Start a war? Liba had a functioning economy and good standards of living for the area, until Obama-NATO-France regime bombed the hell out of it. It has always nagged at me why Obama supports al Qaeda affiliated armed radical rebels in Libya yet ignores Yemen/Behrain unarmed people getting shot who scale. Pretty clear Obama is not telling the who truth one way or another. -- Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance? |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On 21/05/2011 9:55 AM, Harryk wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Mubarak was no dictator, he was rightfully elected and due for an election he always said he would hold this September. You need to stop reading the pure fleabagger leftie smear rags and urinalism. Pretty obvious to those that think, that Obama back stabbed a US ally by asking for Mubarak to step down even though he had more popular support in Egypt than Obama has in the USA at the time. But them Obama knew that. Probably wanted the country in disarray so the Muslim Brotherhood could make some progress, and of course kill some more Christians in Egypt. Over 100 have died and churches burned...not a peep from Obama. Obama is behaving as a Muslim, the furtherment of Islam radicalism. Screw up a democracy giving the misery that radical Islam preys upon to grow. -- Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance? |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was betrayed by Obama, few know he was elected You obviously know nothing about the last "election" in Egypt that Mubarak won. The "election" was fixed from the beginning. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was no dictator Bull****. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On 22/05/2011 10:32 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: Mubarak was no dictator Bull****. Fleabagger denial? -- Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance? |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On 22/05/2011 10:31 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: Mubarak was betrayed by Obama, few know he was elected You obviously know nothing about the last "election" in Egypt that Mubarak won. The "election" was fixed from the beginning. As if US elections are not. People conditioned to think Dimwith or GOP...rich pick the ponies in a ruse of democracy, and as a herd the public always votes for one of the two hand picked ponies. No coincidence Obama was brought in so quick, they could see Hilary would loose to McCain so go for the race card to get the pocket boy in the office. No one in the Dimwit party likes to talk about how Obama raised so much money so quickly. Fact is, Mubarak won, US in 2005 supported it, Obama back stabbed him and the world outside of US media control knows it. And certainly at least as legitimate and Florida...as at least they could count. -- Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance? |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On 5/22/2011 1:22 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 22/05/2011 10:32 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: Mubarak was no dictator Bull****. Fleabagger denial? Harry's debating style has the ear marks of De Plume's fine coaching. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
Canuck57 wrote:
On 22/05/2011 10:31 AM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: Mubarak was betrayed by Obama, few know he was elected You obviously know nothing about the last "election" in Egypt that Mubarak won. The "election" was fixed from the beginning. As if US elections are not. People conditioned to think Dimwith or GOP...rich pick the ponies in a ruse of democracy, and as a herd the public always votes for one of the two hand picked ponies. No coincidence Obama was brought in so quick, they could see Hilary would loose to McCain so go for the race card to get the pocket boy in the office. No one in the Dimwit party likes to talk about how Obama raised so much money so quickly. Fact is, Mubarak won, US in 2005 supported it, Obama back stabbed him and the world outside of US media control knows it. And certainly at least as legitimate and Florida...as at least they could count. Mubarak was a dictator. http://www.parade.com/dictators/2009....html?index=10 "More of the World's Worst Dictators Hosni Mubarak Back to World's Worst Dictators home... 20. Hosni Mubarak Egypt Age: 80 In power since: 1981 Last year's rank: 17 The use of torture in Egypt has been widely documented. In response to international pressure, Mubarak allowed local elections in 2008, but in 80% of the contests, his party’s candidates ran unopposed. He made it so difficult to register or campaign that turnout was estimated at only 3%. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:40:55 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:55:59 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:13:13 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600, wrote: On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, wrote: It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II. Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south. Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back. It doesn't end. In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the spoils of war. (We bought Alaska) I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today. The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the 1967 borders. Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get brewing until 630AD.... So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally. Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders. It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30 years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus. It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a friend. I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered. I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right. It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion dollar's worth of training to use them. It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we hope it turns out better than Iran. The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support. Sadat got his ass handed to him in 1973 and knew that his Soviet equipment was useless. As Greg said his deal with Israel got him new equipment, training and billions of dollars. Mubarak could have been seeing all of the money coming in and decided that he wanted to line his pockets rather than let Sadat pad his families pockets. It also ushered in a lasting peace between two countries at each other's throats. Peace is usually what happens after you get your ass kicked by another country. So, that's your method maintaining peace... beat up on everyone else? Sheesh. Peace does not come from mutual respect it comes from fear of getting your ass kicked or from recently having your ass kicked. Maybe in your tiny world, but mutual respect is the key to lasting peace. I have no idea what point you're trying to make about Mubarak. He didn't take over in a coup d'état. Who lead the coup? There was no coup. Do you have the ability to Google? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak Mubarak took power after a failed coup. Huh? There was no failed coup that involved Mubarak's ascendancy to the office. He was already there. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On Sun, 22 May 2011 11:37:12 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:40:55 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... I have no idea what point you're trying to make about Mubarak. He didn't take over in a coup d'état. Who lead the coup? There was no coup. Do you have the ability to Google? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak Mubarak took power after a failed coup. The only real significance of the coup (actually just an attempt to kill every senior member of the Mubarak administration) was that it killed Sadat and allowed Mubarak to move up one slot. Mubarak was part of every step of the deal with Israel and that was what set off the gang who tried to kill them. He maintained power with oppressive suppression of any opposition to the current policies. Now that this suppression is gone, it is not unreasonable to believe the same feelings that brought on Sadat's assassination will boil up. In fact it came from the same army that is now running the country. We just do not know which faction is in control. It is safe to say it is not the Sadat/Mubarak wing or the revolution would not have had army support. The fact is that you're just making stuff up. You claim to know things you don't. Your comments reflect a pretty big deficit of understanding of Egypt and the region in general. You also seem to have no problem replying to my posts second hand. What are you afraid of exactly? |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
On Sun, 22 May 2011 12:32:21 -0400, Harryk
wrote: Canuck57 wrote: Mubarak was no dictator Bull****. Are you being redundant? Chuckless is clearly full of bull. |
Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com