It looks like bombing Libya and taking out Gaddafi has not helped with America's reputation there
Options
Comments
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
You sound like Ronald Reagan and George W Bush now LOL......why should it be America bailing out so many parts of the world when we have so many problems here?? If I sound isolationist, that's fine because America is 16 trillion in debt and is hated enough in many parts of the world, so why butt our noses in in places that already don't like us? You mentioned Vietnam, a war of aggression that America started only (or mostly) to stop the spread of communism. It was a foolish war so I'm surprised you would bring up that example.
Listen, if you wana get your Ronald Reagan and George W Bush on around the world, that's cool. But if our consulate being burned down to the ground is one of the results of "liberating" Libya, give me my isolationism any day. It is sweet of you to say we went into Libya to end "genocide", but it's funny to say things like that when America is mass killing people all over the planet. I bet you Obama has killed way more people than Gaddafi ever did, does that mean someone should begin air raiding America?
When was it that GWB and Reagan attempted to stop a genocide? Last president that did that was Clinton in the Balkans whom was also fully backed by the UN, and before that, no one. We ignored the genovide during ww2 until we were attacked. I bought the Vietnam war up not for direct comparisons sake, but to illustrate the dynamics of handling a ? up situation, and to show that things are not as ? up as you would like us to believe in Libya. This is also to illustrate that not every situation is the same and to show you varying situations where we ? up and were attacked yet still keep diplomacy with our former enemies including Vietnam which was as ? up a situation as the dropping a bomb on the Japanese which i mentioned earlier. Yet we still cool with Japan.
But we didn't need to send our military into Libya unlike Vietnam and Obama got Osama which if he was handling it post 9/11, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan now. You are glossing over the fact that we are friends with former enemies that have found success working with us after varying types of engagements that can't really be compared. They already air raided us with our own planes which is why we went into Afghanistan in the fist place. We were also asked for assistance because the organized rebels in Libya were outgunned and civilians were being directly targeted with no military target in sight. But at least they had their ? together. Things went better in Egypt but not in other places like Syria. We could only do so much to help.
I have no issue with the US finally using our might and influence to stop fanatics rather then solve daddy issues. We all live on one planet and our economies are linked around the globe. It's in worlds interest for America to have a strong economy. Obama is handling the debt and decreasing the rate of military spending. It seems that you like to ignore the large populations of people that do "like us" and those who asked for our assistance unlike in Iraq. The Libyan Civil War was already on and far more people would have died if we didn't intervene with UN and NATO backing, there knowing we had the chance to. Look at Syria for an example. -
don't we still have a disagreement about you calling this the Libyan war?kingblaze84 wrote: »Okay Janklow let me ask you a question, would YOU have approved the Libyan war? Considering many intelligence experts have been proven right when they stated taking out Gaddadi would mean Libya becoming a stronghold for terrorist activity.
i don't think this was about half of Europe not respecting us so much as "the portion of Europe gobbled up by the Soviet Union was forced to mysteriously follow their policies whether they agreed with them or not"FuriousOne wrote: »Also, half of Europe did not respect us which is why we had a Cold War vs the communist states of Europe along with proxy wars against their main benefactor.
well, i don't think the BRITISH saw us liberators, given all the fighting we did in Britain... but on the other hand, i am pretty sure i can think of a WW2 example of us fighting the French...kingblaze84 wrote: »I don't know what you're talking about when you say America did not fight in Britain or France, have you ever heard of D-Day? D-Day in World War 2 took place in France LOL......the French treated us as liberators after the war, and so did the British. No one in those nations blew up our consulate after we liberated them, unlike in Libya....
uh, is Reagan the best example here?kingblaze84 wrote: »You sound like Ronald Reagan and George W Bush now-
also, i am not sure how much you exactly understand about the Vietnam War.kingblaze84 wrote: »You mentioned Vietnam, a war of aggression that America started- -
don't we still have a disagreement about you calling this the Libyan war?kingblaze84 wrote: »Okay Janklow let me ask you a question, would YOU have approved the Libyan war? Considering many intelligence experts have been proven right when they stated taking out Gaddadi would mean Libya becoming a stronghold for terrorist activity.
i don't think this was about half of Europe not respecting us so much as "the portion of Europe gobbled up by the Soviet Union was forced to mysteriously follow their policies whether they agreed with them or not"FuriousOne wrote: »Also, half of Europe did not respect us which is why we had a Cold War vs the communist states of Europe along with proxy wars against their main benefactor.
well, i don't think the BRITISH saw us liberators, given all the fighting we did in Britain... but on the other hand, i am pretty sure i can think of a WW2 example of us fighting the French...kingblaze84 wrote: »I don't know what you're talking about when you say America did not fight in Britain or France, have you ever heard of D-Day? D-Day in World War 2 took place in France LOL......the French treated us as liberators after the war, and so did the British. No one in those nations blew up our consulate after we liberated them, unlike in Libya....
uh, is Reagan the best example here?kingblaze84 wrote: »You sound like Ronald Reagan and George W Bush now-
also, i am not sure how much you exactly understand about the Vietnam War.kingblaze84 wrote: »You mentioned Vietnam, a war of aggression that America started-
You still think air raiding Libya wasn't an act of war?? LOL you're almost hopelessly naive at this point. As I said before, if someone air raided parts of America, you wouldn't call that an act of war? Japan air raided Hawaii in 1941, you wouldn't have considered that an act of war?? I think these many years of war have numbed you to what an air raid actually does smfh
-
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
You sound like Ronald Reagan and George W Bush now LOL......why should it be America bailing out so many parts of the world when we have so many problems here?? If I sound isolationist, that's fine because America is 16 trillion in debt and is hated enough in many parts of the world, so why butt our noses in in places that already don't like us? You mentioned Vietnam, a war of aggression that America started only (or mostly) to stop the spread of communism. It was a foolish war so I'm surprised you would bring up that example.
Listen, if you wana get your Ronald Reagan and George W Bush on around the world, that's cool. But if our consulate being burned down to the ground is one of the results of "liberating" Libya, give me my isolationism any day. It is sweet of you to say we went into Libya to end "genocide", but it's funny to say things like that when America is mass killing people all over the planet. I bet you Obama has killed way more people than Gaddafi ever did, does that mean someone should begin air raiding America?
When was it that GWB and Reagan attempted to stop a genocide? Last president that did that was Clinton in the Balkans whom was also fully backed by the UN, and before that, no one. We ignored the genovide during ww2 until we were attacked. I bought the Vietnam war up not for direct comparisons sake, but to illustrate the dynamics of handling a ? up situation, and to show that things are not as ? up as you would like us to believe in Libya. This is also to illustrate that not every situation is the same and to show you varying situations where we ? up and were attacked yet still keep diplomacy with our former enemies including Vietnam which was as ? up a situation as the dropping a bomb on the Japanese which i mentioned earlier. Yet we still cool with Japan.
But we didn't need to send our military into Libya unlike Vietnam and Obama got Osama which if he was handling it post 9/11, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan now. You are glossing over the fact that we are friends with former enemies that have found success working with us after varying types of engagements that can't really be compared. They already air raided us with our own planes which is why we went into Afghanistan in the fist place. We were also asked for assistance because the organized rebels in Libya were outgunned and civilians were being directly targeted with no military target in sight. But at least they had their ? together. Things went better in Egypt but not in other places like Syria. We could only do so much to help.
I have no issue with the US finally using our might and influence to stop fanatics rather then solve daddy issues. We all live on one planet and our economies are linked around the globe. It's in worlds interest for America to have a strong economy. Obama is handling the debt and decreasing the rate of military spending. It seems that you like to ignore the large populations of people that do "like us" and those who asked for our assistance unlike in Iraq. The Libyan Civil War was already on and far more people would have died if we didn't intervene with UN and NATO backing, there knowing we had the chance to. Look at Syria for an example.
Obama is handling the debt??? LOL, okay I'm gona pretend you didn't say that. Ben Bernanke is printing money like there is no tomorrow, and this WILL destroy America's future in the long run, it already is. Why Obama hasn't asked Bernanke to resign yet is beyond troubling but again, I'm gona pretend you didn't actually say Obama is handling the debt, LOL ? outta here with that ? . One trillion every year since Obama has been president, and you have the nerve to tell me Obama is handling the debt, come on man.
As far as Obama's bloodthirsty warmongering around the globe, you seem to be impressed by it. I'm not. Someone else should have did those air raids, America has enough blood on its hands. The Libyan rebels have many terrorist elements in them anyway, and whether you want to believe it or not, Libya is now a stronghold for terror, anyone who believes otherwise is either fooling themselves or is unwilling to see reality. Believe what you wish, for now, all I see in America's efforts to "liberate" Libya is a burned consulate with weak protection from our allies" in Libya. A complete disgrace all around. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
Obama is handling the debt??? LOL, okay I'm gona pretend you didn't say that. Ben Bernanke is printing money like there is no tomorrow, and this WILL destroy America's future in the long run, it already is. Why Obama hasn't asked Bernanke to resign yet is beyond troubling but again, I'm gona pretend you didn't actually say Obama is handling the debt, LOL ? outta here with that ? . One trillion every year since Obama has been president, and you have the nerve to tell me Obama is handling the debt, come on man.
As far as Obama's bloodthirsty warmongering around the globe, you seem to be impressed by it. I'm not. Someone else should have did those air raids, America has enough blood on its hands. The Libyan rebels have many terrorist elements in them anyway, and whether you want to believe it or not, Libya is now a stronghold for terror, anyone who believes otherwise is either fooling themselves or is unwilling to see reality. Believe what you wish, for now, all I see in America's efforts to "liberate" Libya is a burned consulate with weak protection from our allies" in Libya. A complete disgrace all around.
Way to change the subject. Obama is handling the debt, by slowing spending and streamlining the government with initiatives like Obamacare. He ended one war, and is ending another (properly).
The debt will increase regardless as all countries have debt because they actually have to pay their bills to run the country, the deficit is also what governments worry about because it's an indication that you can't handle your debt. Creating more jobs will aid in decreasing the debt and deficit but the republicans are blocking plans.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4895/barack-obama-ron-paul-debt-plans-reduce-deficit-while-all-other-republican-candidates-increase-deficit
Brah, smh at you spreading republican fallacies. 1 trillion a year since? I can see if that was a projection over the next ten years because you know, we still have to create a budget to keep the country running. There was also a recession, two wars, and unfunded tax cuts that ballooned the deficit which Bush pushed to the next president. Maybe you forgot about that. Handling doesn't mean he's creating a miracle to solve everything tomorrow.
What did you expect the fed to do in a recession? How does that add to the debt?A government monetary policy occasionally used to increase the money supply by buying government securities or other securities from the market. Quantitative easing increases the money supply by flooding financial institutions with capital, in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity.
Back to the subject. We went from Al Qaeda actions, to connections, to terrorist elements. There is also a democratically elected government that you failed to mention. SMH. I'm just going to let you enjoy your doom and gloom fantasy that all is lost even though i just gave you a ? ton of examples showing how post war environments are still dangerous, but does not indicate that all is lost. All the scenarios of what could have been and what will be is known by the mystic guru kingblaze84. You are giving your own opinions on the subject and obviously, your opinion in the face of historical records is golden.
I am glad Obama is going after the crew that attacked us and is planning more attacks as Bush should have rather then go into all out war. You out here dictating the present and future based on past events as if they're all related, and are existing within the same political and economic atmosphere. Everybody has blood on their hands. You worried about terrorist, but not understanding that they will do far more damage if we don't attack their organization because their goal is not peace. I'm also happy that helped to end a growing genocide in Libya without committing soldiers and which allowed them to create a progressive government elected by the people. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
Obama is handling the debt??? LOL, okay I'm gona pretend you didn't say that. Ben Bernanke is printing money like there is no tomorrow, and this WILL destroy America's future in the long run, it already is. Why Obama hasn't asked Bernanke to resign yet is beyond troubling but again, I'm gona pretend you didn't actually say Obama is handling the debt, LOL ? outta here with that ? . One trillion every year since Obama has been president, and you have the nerve to tell me Obama is handling the debt, come on man.
As far as Obama's bloodthirsty warmongering around the globe, you seem to be impressed by it. I'm not. Someone else should have did those air raids, America has enough blood on its hands. The Libyan rebels have many terrorist elements in them anyway, and whether you want to believe it or not, Libya is now a stronghold for terror, anyone who believes otherwise is either fooling themselves or is unwilling to see reality. Believe what you wish, for now, all I see in America's efforts to "liberate" Libya is a burned consulate with weak protection from our allies" in Libya. A complete disgrace all around.
Way to change the subject. Obama is handling the debt, by slowing spending and streamlining the government with initiatives like Obamacare. He ended one war, and is ending another (properly).
The debt will increase regardless as all countries have debt because they actually have to pay their bills to run the country, the deficit is also what governments worry about because it's an indication that you can't handle your debt. Creating more jobs will aid in decreasing the debt and deficit but the republicans are blocking plans.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4895/barack-obama-ron-paul-debt-plans-reduce-deficit-while-all-other-republican-candidates-increase-deficit
Brah, smh at you spreading republican fallacies. 1 trillion a year since? I can see if that was a projection over the next ten years because you know, we still have to create a budget to keep the country running. There was also a recession, two wars, and unfunded tax cuts that ballooned the deficit which Bush pushed to the next president. Maybe you forgot about that. Handling doesn't mean he's creating a miracle to solve everything tomorrow.
What did you expect the fed to do in a recession? How does that add to the debt?A government monetary policy occasionally used to increase the money supply by buying government securities or other securities from the market. Quantitative easing increases the money supply by flooding financial institutions with capital, in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity.
Back to the subject. We went from Al Qaeda actions, to connections, to terrorist elements. There is also a democratically elected government that you failed to mention. SMH. I'm just going to let you enjoy your doom and gloom fantasy that all is lost even though i just gave you a ? ton of examples showing how post war environments are still dangerous, but does not indicate that all is lost. All the scenarios of what could have been and what will be is known by the mystic guru kingblaze84. You are giving your own opinions on the subject and obviously, your opinion in the face of historical records is golden.
I am glad Obama is going after the crew that attacked us and is planning more attacks as Bush should have rather then go into all out war. You out here dictating the present and future based on past events as if they're all related, and are existing within the same political and economic atmosphere. Everybody has blood on their hands. You worried about terrorist, but not understanding that they will do far more damage if we don't attack their organization because their goal is not peace. I'm also happy that helped to end a growing genocide in Libya without committing soldiers and which allowed them to create a progressive government elected by the people.
Well I brought up the ugly deficits only because you said Obama is "handling" the debt, which is still a joke. One trillion a year in spending is one trillion a year in spending, no matter how you cut it and spin it. You mention the deficits yearly under Obama are so high because of the wars and unfunded Bush tax cuts? UMMMM.......why is Obama continuing so much of Bush's policies than lol.....if Obama would have had some ? ? and not cave in on the Bush tax cuts, and work to end the war in Afghanistan immediately, we wouldn't have had all this crazy spending. Your numbers don't impress me only because Obama is still continuing so many of Bush's reckless and stupid policies that will make America more broke in the future, more endangered, and will increase inflation as well.
Back to the war on Libya.....as I have said before, it's not America's job to play superman in a region that ALREADY hates us due to our nonchalant mass killings over there for oil and resources. You still think we're over there to fight terror? Create freedom? HAHAHAHA!!!!! You're naive and I'm sad to say, somewhat gullible. Read the book Confessions of An Economic Hitman, and then take a look at American foreign policy. If you have already read the book, than it is obvious you need to read it again. The American consulate was burned to the ground by fanatics who hate America and guess what? The Libyan war only radicalized terrorists more. You can't ? your way out of peace, sometimes you can, but as Sun Tzu wisely said, a military can win its battles ONLY if it has moral authority.
America under bloodthirsty, warmongering presidents like Bush and Obama (two faces on the same coin) has ZERO moral authority. And this is why America under Obama has had no rest from terror. But hey, if you think we can still ? our way to peace in a place where America has and IS doing so much evil, be my guest. Let's hope another consulate doesn't get blown up while we're at it. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
Well I brought up the ugly deficits only because you said Obama is "handling" the debt, which is still a joke. One trillion a year in spending is one trillion a year in spending, no matter how you cut it and spin it. You mention the deficits yearly under Obama are so high because of the wars and unfunded Bush tax cuts? UMMMM.......why is Obama continuing so much of Bush's policies than lol.....if Obama would have had some ? ? and not cave in on the Bush tax cuts, and work to end the war in Afghanistan immediately, we wouldn't have had all this crazy spending. Your numbers don't impress me only because Obama is still continuing so many of Bush's reckless and stupid policies that will make America more broke in the future, more endangered, and will increase inflation as well.
Back to the war on Libya.....as I have said before, it's not America's job to play superman in a region that ALREADY hates us due to our nonchalant mass killings over there for oil and resources. You still think we're over there to fight terror? Create freedom? HAHAHAHA!!!!! You're naive and I'm sad to say, somewhat gullible. Read the book Confessions of An Economic Hitman, and then take a look at American foreign policy. If you have already read the book, than it is obvious you need to read it again. The American consulate was burned to the ground by fanatics who hate America and guess what? The Libyan war only radicalized terrorists more. You can't ? your way out of peace, sometimes you can, but as Sun Tzu wisely said, a military can win its battles ONLY if it has moral authority.
America under bloodthirsty, warmongering presidents like Bush and Obama (two faces on the same coin) has ZERO moral authority. And this is why America under Obama has had no rest from terror. But hey, if you think we can still ? our way to peace in a place where America has and IS doing so much evil, be my guest. Let's hope another consulate doesn't get blown up while we're at it.
So now you acting like you weren't the one that bought up the dept first? SMH.. And the debt and deficit aren't the same thing. Learn economics. You and i both know that Obama could not end those tax cuts without giving up unemployment. Then you still can't be fool enough to still run with the fact that he created trillion dollar a year deficits. So you avoiding facts and coming to your own conclusions now. You are being willfully ignorant. ? yo book. I'm looking at the actual facts as they played out. You crying about terrorist safe havens. What do you think will happen if we do not attempt to help Afghanistan transition after the war and they fall to terrorist again? Iraq and Afghanistan weren't wars fought for the same causes. Your opinion on what's moral and whether intervening there was or wasn't moral is just that, your opinion just like it's your opinion that terrorist now have more power there when there was one in charge previously. You stressing the consulate as if this is the end all event is the silliest ? of all.
Your opinion on whether we should go after terrorist that hit the world trade center twice (first in 93), and acted on, and planned more events in order to prevent more is also your silly opinion. We leveled an entire empire for for attacking our military and you seemed to have supported that. What did you think would happened with civilians being attacked. I was never against the Afghanistan war. I felt it was needed and so is going after Al Qaeda which most nations are taking a part in because it's a universal threat. We also have the support of allies in that region, no matter the feelings of terrorist. Your simping for those dudes a bit too much. They don't have clean hands either. All stands on morality is out the window at that point. Intervening in one sided massacres is what the post ww2 UN was created for. To stop tyrants if it has the means to. You out here acting like you cool with dictators long as they silent about it. You just said, at times peace can be won through war. Well, you have no proof other then your love fest for the destruction of the consulate, that this isn't one of those times, and we do not have the support of a people who asked for our assistance. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
Well I brought up the ugly deficits only because you said Obama is "handling" the debt, which is still a joke. One trillion a year in spending is one trillion a year in spending, no matter how you cut it and spin it. You mention the deficits yearly under Obama are so high because of the wars and unfunded Bush tax cuts? UMMMM.......why is Obama continuing so much of Bush's policies than lol.....if Obama would have had some ? ? and not cave in on the Bush tax cuts, and work to end the war in Afghanistan immediately, we wouldn't have had all this crazy spending. Your numbers don't impress me only because Obama is still continuing so many of Bush's reckless and stupid policies that will make America more broke in the future, more endangered, and will increase inflation as well.
Back to the war on Libya.....as I have said before, it's not America's job to play superman in a region that ALREADY hates us due to our nonchalant mass killings over there for oil and resources. You still think we're over there to fight terror? Create freedom? HAHAHAHA!!!!! You're naive and I'm sad to say, somewhat gullible. Read the book Confessions of An Economic Hitman, and then take a look at American foreign policy. If you have already read the book, than it is obvious you need to read it again. The American consulate was burned to the ground by fanatics who hate America and guess what? The Libyan war only radicalized terrorists more. You can't ? your way out of peace, sometimes you can, but as Sun Tzu wisely said, a military can win its battles ONLY if it has moral authority.
America under bloodthirsty, warmongering presidents like Bush and Obama (two faces on the same coin) has ZERO moral authority. And this is why America under Obama has had no rest from terror. But hey, if you think we can still ? our way to peace in a place where America has and IS doing so much evil, be my guest. Let's hope another consulate doesn't get blown up while we're at it.
So now you acting like you weren't the one that bought up the dept first? SMH.. And the debt and deficit aren't the same thing. Learn economics. You and i both know that Obama could not end those tax cuts without giving up unemployment. Then you still can't be fool enough to still run with the fact that he created trillion dollar a year deficits. So you avoiding facts and coming to your own conclusions now. You are being willfully ignorant. ? yo book. I'm looking at the actual facts as they played out. You crying about terrorist safe havens. What do you think will happen if we do not attempt to help Afghanistan transition after the war and they fall to terrorist again? Iraq and Afghanistan weren't wars fought for the same causes. Your opinion on what's moral and whether intervening there was or wasn't moral is just that, your opinion just like it's your opinion that terrorist now have more power there when there was one in charge previously. You stressing the consulate as if this is the end all event is the silliest ? of all.
Your opinion on whether we should go after terrorist that hit the world trade center twice (first in 93), and acted on, and planned more events in order to prevent more is also your silly opinion. We leveled an entire empire for for attacking our military and you seemed to have supported that. What did you think would happened with civilians being attacked. I was never against the Afghanistan war. I felt it was needed and so is going after Al Qaeda which most nations are taking a part in because it's a universal threat. We also have the support of allies in that region, no matter the feelings of terrorist. Your simping for those dudes a bit too much. They don't have clean hands either. All stands on morality is out the window at that point. Intervening in one sided massacres is what the post ww2 UN was created for. To stop tyrants if it has the means to. You out here acting like you cool with dictators long as they silent about it. You just said, at times peace can be won through war. Well, you have no proof other then your love fest for the destruction of the consulate, that this isn't one of those times, and we do not have the support of a people who asked for our assistance.
Well since you want to be technical, let's talk about yearly deficit spending under Obama, which has been above one trillion dollars each year since he's been in office. That's not good, and you're right in that if Obama would have ended the Bush tax cuts, the unemployed would have seen an end to benefits, at least for awhile. The choice was tough either way, but extending the Bush tax cuts blew up the deficit further, something that will have disastrous consequences in the long run. You don't seem to care about the deficit, so I'll leave that alone. I personally care about America's deficits because the bigger they are, the worse America's future becomes. I'm a conservative when it comes to deficit spending, I make no apologies for that. Higher inflation will only get worse because of Democrats and Republicans' drunken sailor spending.
And as far as the Afghan war, I supported it when we first went there. I'm just saying it's time to get the ? out. 12 years is enough lol....The war isn't gona end well either way, our lack of moral authority there has made it impossible for us to win there at this point. And I see your false belief that our allies in the region want us there, LOL who the ? told you that?? Karzai, president of Afghanistan, has called the Taliban and American military devils, he accepts our help because we're giving him money and he's corrupt as hell. It's not America's job to babysit the planet, we're not getting much investment for our buck. America's policies of mass killing and bloodshed isn't making us popular there anyway, you do realize America's approval ratings in the Middle East are lower now than even in the Bush days right?? Obama has a very low approval rating in the Muslim world, so what makes you think bombing and stealing resources all day there will work now? ? ain't working dog, maybe it's time you pick up a Time Magazine and see how hated we are there.
-
For anyone who thinks Obama's cowboy, bloodthirsty policies in the Middle East are helping America's image, read this, especially you Furiousone......Obama's popularity in the Arab world is even lower than Bush's lol....no coincidence the American consulate in Libya got bombed the ? out after I read these numbers.....
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/change-obamas-approval-rating-now-lower-than-bush-in-arab-world/
Respondents rated Obama’s policies as less popular than other leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
James Zogby, the anti-Israel pollster who released these findings today, blames the drop in support for Obama in the Arab world on Obama’s failure to put the amount of pressure on Israel the Arab world wanted and expected. But according to the poll, the Arab world doesn’t seem to be happy with any of America’s foreign policy positions. Respondents rated Obama’s policies as the least popular, when compared with other leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Killing Osama bin Laden also contributed to the Arab world’s negative views of Obama. In all six countries surveyed – Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia – the majority of respondents said killing bin Laden made them “less favorable toward the U.S.” Notably, in Egypt, only 2 percent said the al Qaeda leader’s death made them view America more positively.
Most surprisingly, Obama’s approval ratings are even lower than President Bush’s before he left office in 2008. They dropped from 26 percent to 12 percent in Morocco, 9 percent to 5 percent in Egypt, 16 percent to 10 percent in Jordan and 22 percent to 12 percent in the UAE (though they did improve in Saudi Arabia, and tick up slightly in Lebanon). -
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/23/reality-check-obama-has-not-restored-america-s-image-in-the-middle-east.html
--Another poll for you Furiousone.....so what were you saying about the benefits of America playing warmongering babysitter? -
what did i say about this? are we discussing topics or talking ? ? MAKE UP YOUR MIND.kingblaze84 wrote: »LOL you're almost hopelessly naive at this point.
well, i'm trying to think of the UN Security Council resolution that Japan was implementing by bombing Pearl Harbor. oh, wait, and also trying to forget that Japan declared war prior to attacking Pearl Harbor. things like this might be why we call it a military intervention and not a war.kingblaze84 wrote: »Japan air raided Hawaii in 1941, you wouldn't have considered that an act of war? -
lol damn yall still going at it???
-
what did i say about this? are we discussing topics or talking ? ? MAKE UP YOUR MIND.kingblaze84 wrote: »LOL you're almost hopelessly naive at this point.
well, i'm trying to think of the UN Security Council resolution that Japan was implementing by bombing Pearl Harbor. oh, wait, and also trying to forget that Japan declared war prior to attacking Pearl Harbor. things like this might be why we call it a military intervention and not a war.kingblaze84 wrote: »Japan air raided Hawaii in 1941, you wouldn't have considered that an act of war?
Even if America didn't declare war during the Libyan "intervention", it is still an act of war to bomb a nation the way we did Libya. If Mexico bombed out parts of America, you better believe America would consider that an act of war. The UN Security Council did approve of the "intervention", but that does not mean America had to air raid Libya and ? MORE people from the Middle East, isn't America hated there enough already??? The UN didn't need America's help to bomb out Libya, America should have spent those one billion dollars here at home bailing out states. NYC has homeless people at the highest levels since the Great Depression, NY could have used those billion dollars to build some more homeless shelters. -
lol damn yall still going at it???
Some people here actually think the Libyan "intervention" was a good thing.....they fail to see how America's cowboy reputation was cemented by this disaster, and will cost more lives in the future.... -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
No, I'm with you. You and a few others seem to be the only ones to recognize the fiasco that our foreign policy has become for some time now. The way I see it is that the Libya situation, like many of our other recent and current "wars", has only made things worse for us in so many ways.
I respect and like Obama, but that doesn't absolve him from basically reinforcing and even extending Bush's foreign policy (? , generally he and Romney are even on the same page, look at how many times they were in agreement during the foreign policy debate). And let's be honest here, we're not doing this to save lives. We're doing this to capitalize on profits and to protect our various interests (Israel and resources like oil). I wonder why we didn't involve ourselves in Sudan. Or Bosnia (until it was a little too late?). Or even Mexico. And I think that the Vietnam comparison can be relevant since that international affair was also a fiasco (foreign and domestic-wise) even if we don't want to admit it. -
You basically empowered AlQaeda.
-
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
No, I'm with you. You and a few others seem to be the only ones to recognize the fiasco that our foreign policy has become for some time now. The way I see it is that the Libya situation, like many of our other recent and current "wars", has only made things worse for us in so many ways.
I respect and like Obama, but that doesn't absolve him from basically reinforcing and even extending Bush's foreign policy (? , generally he and Romney are even on the same page, look at how many times they were in agreement during the foreign policy debate). And let's be honest here, we're not doing this to save lives. We're doing this to capitalize on profits and to protect our various interests (Israel and resources like oil). I wonder why we didn't involve ourselves in Sudan. Or Bosnia (until it was a little too late?). Or even Mexico. And I think that the Vietnam comparison can be relevant since that international affair was also a fiasco (foreign and domestic-wise) even if we don't want to admit it.
BINGO....... If we really wanted to "liberate" people who went through TRUE massacres, we would've been in the Sudan by now. Ah yeah I forgot, Sudan doesn't have any resources Europe or America wants, so the slaughter may continue unabated. And you also peeped how Romney and Obama basically agreed the whole night on almost every foreign policy topic on Monday HAHA.....that troubled me a lot. -
let's be real for a second.. first of all, there will never be peace.. especially between these 2 (or 3) groups, i mean religions.. 2 of em been fighting for centuries, while the 3rd is financing one (or both) . we all know Muslims are sensitive, but lets be real, dude knew what he was gettin into when he wrote and filmed the movie. he even had sponsors who gave him money for production. and these arent some uneducated people who dont know what repurcussions mean. they knew what it can lead to and they did it anyway.. and doesnt the US usually go over movies before they approve to be broadcasted? and they let this little slip in a time where anything can spark a war. most ppl in afganistan dont even know what the twin towers look like let alone what happened to them. America is a bubble country where they feed you all the news and share it with Europe. they choose what info they give us.. jus like they choose what movies can and cannot come out.
i feel that the muslims have every right to protest because their faith is being make a joke of. and i believe everyone should respect each other's faith no matter how crazy or how fake it may sound to u..
anybody has the right to say jesus is either white, black, yellow, or doesnt even exist.. but to make a movie about Jesus ? animals and doin all types of fuckery wont blow over to well with the Christian and Catholic churches of the world.. They got mad at Mel Gibson and he was jus reenacting a story pretty much how it was in the books abd people still got mad over it.. i dont see why people expect the muslims to get a laugh out of it.. there is sattire and there is sattire... the Dictator can be considered that, harmless.. even tho he moght have pushed some of his anti islamic views in the movie.. but it was with a diety.. it was with an already "cruel" leader that we are all used to seeing on CNN..
anyway im off topic i think.. all im sayin is there will never be peace because america nor europe will want to pay full price for any of Africa's resources, and there will always be an opposing team to that. neither romney or Obama can fix this. cause where they can help one group they are ? over another. and this will always and only lead to war. cause every country wants to be number 1. so the race is for money and resources. and unfortunately for libya and those type of countries, they are only stepping stones so that US or europe can dominate more territories to stay on top. all leaders of the world are in a game of chess. some already way ahead.. while the citizen and soldiers are jus the pawns.. either voting for dubious laws passed by the senate or jus out there bombin ? for reasons they dont know of.. -
the point here is that you've repeatedly made a false comparison to "what if Mexico just bombed the US" because you need it for your argument to work. i hinted at this before, but you've persisted with it and are now making the even MORE ridiculous comparison with Pearl Harbor.kingblaze84 wrote: »Even if America didn't declare war during the Libyan "intervention", it is still an act of war to bomb a nation the way we did Libya. If Mexico bombed out parts of America, you better believe America would consider that an act of war. The UN Security Council did approve of the "intervention"-
completely separate point from the one you were making, however. so are you acknowledging that you have been (repeatedly) incorrect to portray it as similar to Pearl Harbor or your fictional Mexican attack scenario?kingblaze84 wrote: »-but that does not mean America had to air raid Libya and ? MORE people from the Middle East, isn't America hated there enough already?
again, please don't bail on your point without acknowledging that your comparison is unfair. and actually, yeah, the UN absolutely DID need America's help to bomb Libya. who else was going to do it?kingblaze84 wrote: »The UN didn't need America's help to bomb out Libya, America should have spent those one billion dollars here at home bailing out states.
yeah, it's not like Sudan has oil or anything like that. oh wait...kingblaze84 wrote: »Ah yeah I forgot, Sudan doesn't have any resources Europe or America wants- -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
No, I'm with you. You and a few others seem to be the only ones to recognize the fiasco that our foreign policy has become for some time now. The way I see it is that the Libya situation, like many of our other recent and current "wars", has only made things worse for us in so many ways.
I respect and like Obama, but that doesn't absolve him from basically reinforcing and even extending Bush's foreign policy (? , generally he and Romney are even on the same page, look at how many times they were in agreement during the foreign policy debate). And let's be honest here, we're not doing this to save lives. We're doing this to capitalize on profits and to protect our various interests (Israel and resources like oil). I wonder why we didn't involve ourselves in Sudan. Or Bosnia (until it was a little too late?). Or even Mexico. And I think that the Vietnam comparison can be relevant since that international affair was also a fiasco (foreign and domestic-wise) even if we don't want to admit it.
BINGO....... If we really wanted to "liberate" people who went through TRUE massacres, we would've been in the Sudan by now. Ah yeah I forgot, Sudan doesn't have any resources Europe or America wants, so the slaughter may continue unabated.
the point here is that you've repeatedly made a false comparison to "what if Mexico just bombed the US" because you need it for your argument to work. i hinted at this before, but you've persisted with it and are now making the even MORE ridiculous comparison with Pearl Harbor.kingblaze84 wrote: »Even if America didn't declare war during the Libyan "intervention", it is still an act of war to bomb a nation the way we did Libya. If Mexico bombed out parts of America, you better believe America would consider that an act of war. The UN Security Council did approve of the "intervention"-
completely separate point from the one you were making, however. so are you acknowledging that you have been (repeatedly) incorrect to portray it as similar to Pearl Harbor or your fictional Mexican attack scenario?kingblaze84 wrote: »-but that does not mean America had to air raid Libya and ? MORE people from the Middle East, isn't America hated there enough already?
again, please don't bail on your point without acknowledging that your comparison is unfair. and actually, yeah, the UN absolutely DID need America's help to bomb Libya. who else was going to do it?kingblaze84 wrote: »The UN didn't need America's help to bomb out Libya, America should have spent those one billion dollars here at home bailing out states.
yeah, it's not like Sudan has oil or anything like that. oh wait...kingblaze84 wrote: »Ah yeah I forgot, Sudan doesn't have any resources Europe or America wants-
Why isn't Mexico air raiding America a good example?? All I'm saying is IF Mexico began air raiding parts of America, Americans and the world in general would consider that an act of war. How can you type with a straight face (Assuming you are) and state that Mexico air raiding America is not an appropriate example? No one has to "declare" war in order to start an ACT of war. Don't be so technical with ? like this, I'm stunned ANYONE in their right mind can say a nation air raiding another nation is NOT an act of war. What the ? are you talking about....this is what I mean by you sounding naive, and that's not talking ? , that's my honest to ? observation of you.
And you state America is the only nation that could have air raided Libya? No other nation has airplanes and bomb equipment now? Really Janklow?? I'll pretend you didn't say such an ignorant statement. There are plenty of nations around the world with bombing equipment, read some books.
As far as Sudan having oil, it doesn't have as much as Libya does. And I guess that's why Obama and Europeans had little problem bombing out Gaddafi while continuing to let the genocide in Darfur continue. You defend the military industrial complex more than almost any other poster here, I've seen some people here say before you talk like someone who works for the CIA, I now see what those people are talking about. Keep defending this crooked, destructive war if you wish, I'll be right here. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
Well since you want to be technical, let's talk about yearly deficit spending under Obama, which has been above one trillion dollars each year since he's been in office. That's not good, and you're right in that if Obama would have ended the Bush tax cuts, the unemployed would have seen an end to benefits, at least for awhile. The choice was tough either way, but extending the Bush tax cuts blew up the deficit further, something that will have disastrous consequences in the long run. You don't seem to care about the deficit, so I'll leave that alone. I personally care about America's deficits because the bigger they are, the worse America's future becomes. I'm a conservative when it comes to deficit spending, I make no apologies for that. Higher inflation will only get worse because of Democrats and Republicans' drunken sailor spending.
And as far as the Afghan war, I supported it when we first went there. I'm just saying it's time to get the ? out. 12 years is enough lol....The war isn't gona end well either way, our lack of moral authority there has made it impossible for us to win there at this point. And I see your false belief that our allies in the region want us there, LOL who the ? told you that?? Karzai, president of Afghanistan, has called the Taliban and American military devils, he accepts our help because we're giving him money and he's corrupt as hell. It's not America's job to babysit the planet, we're not getting much investment for our buck. America's policies of mass killing and bloodshed isn't making us popular there anyway, you do realize America's approval ratings in the Middle East are lower now than even in the Bush days right?? Obama has a very low approval rating in the Muslim world, so what makes you think bombing and stealing resources all day there will work now? ? ain't working dog, maybe it's time you pick up a Time Magazine and see how hated we are there.
You also can't attribute deficit spending by the current president to the amount of deficit that we have. You are ignoring the evidence that Bush created most of the deficit and Obama is maybe responsible for just under 1 trillion. Even adding the extended Bush tax cut wouldn't create more then 3 trillion and that's through 2017. How is 4 did Obama add 4 trillion within the last 4 years?
Some would say deficit spending is good, because the main concern should be about keeping this nation afloat while cutting and streamlining. It's a balancing act. Still this nation has lived through deficits under every president since the 80s except Clinton.
I did mention that Obama is handling the deficit and in turn the overall debt so i don't see how you take that statement as me not being concerned. Just look at the GDP report and tell me that Obama's policies hasn't stimulated the economy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/gdp-at-a-glance-growth-of-us-economy-each-quarter-since-obama-took-office-in-2009/2012/10/26/fcfb9d66-1f7d-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html
On the point of the Arab world's feelings towards America; I wonder if the recent protest against anti Muslim video that conservative fundies created has anything to do with it (which they claimed America supported, even though we only supported free speech)? The only country listed that we have involvement with is Pakistan. And you know they on some ? but they are still working with us. When i say we are accepted, i mean by those who are directly fighting Al Qaeda. We have joint operations with those countries including Pakistan, a country that actually harbored the main ? who started all this. But that is the balancing act of diplomacy that I'm speaking on. Bottom line though is, the US is there to take out Al Qaeda because of that ? they pulled on those towers (twice) and the pentagon, and the for the lives on those planes. Japan didn't get off lite, what gives them a pass?
Even still, our approval ratting is looking good in Libya which is what this debate is about. i mean, they like us more then Canada
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/libyans-now-like-america-slightly-more-than-do-canadians/261078/
Bush didn't handle the war in Afghanistan properly and allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to grow in strength and refocus. Obama went in as promised and handled them. Troops are drawing down even now. And Karzai actually wants the US to stay in Afghanistan. I guess he nervous.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20100055.html
Btw to jump out of our convo, Sudan happened under Bush so you should stop merging these two very different presidencies. Bush blocked intervention through UN veto powers. Also southern Sudan whom were the people that was being slaughtered has a ? load of oil. America does not buy oil from Libya. Obama ended total engagement with the one oil country Bush did attack and America doesn't have any extra leverage there. The minerals that were found only recently in Afghanistan is controlled by the afghan people. I notice you never said anything about Obama sending advisers to Ghana to help them out. There is nothing to gain in doing that. -
-
Furiousone, where do I begin lol......
The spending under Obama has topped one trillion EACH YEAR since he's been in office, and yes, Bush's policies are have been responsible for much of it. The problem I have with Obama, again, is that he is CONTINUING so much of Bush's stupid policies. Look at this link and tell me Obama hasn't been spending money like a drunken 15 year old
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.
The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.
---Obama has spent more in 4 years than Bush did in 8, so blaming Bush for this disaster is foolish. And even if Bush's policies were reckless, why is Obama continuing them? If Obama has spent more in his 4 years than Bush did in 8, you can't really blame Bush for that. Obama continuing so many of Bush's policies and EXPANDING them is destroying the nation. For every link you bring up, I have 100 that show what I am saying to be correct, but nice spirited defense on your part.
As far as Libya liking America more now, that is to be expected, but it didn't help with our reputation in the region, as the many polls I showed you show. What good is it to win a battle but lose the hearts and minds of people in that part of the world? And as I've always argued, the money we spent in Libya air raiding should have been spent here in America. And either way, we just created a terrorist stronghold in Libya, as the consulate attack proved.
Regarding the Sudan, Libya has way more oil and Europe bought most of it, and that's the reason Europe pressured America to get involved in this stupid war. Gaddafi wanted to sell oil using African gold currency, something he wanted to implement but we all know what happened before that could occur.....and as far as Afghanistan, I'm stunned you still support us being there. I'm just glad most Americans want us to get the ? out of there, if 12 years of failure hasn't convinced you otherwise, than do some research on how the Taliban already control most of the country LOL....I'll put up a link if you don't believe me.
-
Another thing Furiousone, your graphs are misleading like a ? because they also don't include spending from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the fact Obama has actually increased defense spending. No matter what little graphs you put up, the REALITY is that the deficit spending UNDER OBAMA has TOPPED one trillion per year, that is disgusting. Stop making excuses for that and if you are, tell me why Obama said he was going to cut the deficit in half under his term......blah we're getting off topic but either way I'm disgusted. How anyone can excuse one trillion PER YEAR in spending is beyond me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX-wEEEaQ-IThis discussion has been closed.