Obama's Church???

[Devils Horse]

DH - The only reason I brought up religous discrimination/prejudice is that you referred to being a muslim in a not so positive way ,as if it were a flaw. I did read what you wrote. - how else can you interpret "I do not like the idea of a muslim born racist as president." Why not just say I do not like the idea of a racist as a president - I would agree with you then. What was the point of adding "muslim born" in there if you did not consider that to be a negative aspect.

I guess it is a good thing Obama is not a satanist, so I won't have to encounter that. I don't see how we went from talking about being muslim to satan worshipers, though.

I do see it as a negative, and maybe I ain't that great a guy for it. But in my defense, I've been watching Muslims purposely target and kill totally uninvolved innocent people in cold blood my entire life, so I'm fresh out of tolerant idealism. Sorry.

I brought up satan worshipers because it was said the church BO belonged to had no bearing. I wanted to see if answers would change if hypothetically his beliefs were totally repugnant. You never did answer that one, and honestly I don't blame you.

BTW, I hope you, Andrew, and anyone else on this board know I argue with y'all but mean you no harm. My mother (voted for Hillary, god help her) always told me I'd argue with a signpost. That's as close to an olive branch as I get guys, hope it's good enough.

Sure will be glad when the ramp thaws out...

[Col Forbin]

[QUOTE=Devils Horse;319081]BTW, I hope you, Andrew, and anyone else on this board know I argue with y'all but mean you no harm. .QUOTE]

No personal offense taken. I am the same way - just because our views differ, I never mean anything on a personal level. I would rather argue with fellow fisherman, than to have a simple conversation with non-fisherman. Good weather is coming this week, and politics will be the last thing on my mind.

[DJD]

I agree with you guy's we all have opinions and it's great to see that we can discuss our views on here as adults. I don't agree with alot of what I read on here but at least it makes me think. Col, you said it as the weather gets better the mind gets to wandering about the fish catching!

[mhall]

I agree with you guy's we all have opinions and it's great to see that we can discuss our views on here as adults. I don't agree with alot of what I read on here but at least it makes me think. Col, you said it as the weather gets better the mind gets to wandering about the fish catching!

Me too guys it's nothing personal as EVERYONE has the right to their own opinion.

[riverrat12]

Me too guys it's nothing personal as EVERYONE has the right to their own opinion.

Ditto

[apb]

....As far as the current war, we didn't start it, radical Muslims who flew planes into buildings full of innocent people in the name of Allah did.....

Wrong war. As I have said before, I have no problem with us going into Afganistan. Iraq is a completely different subject. As far as "Do you really believe opening 'a dialogue' with them will make them stop?" Yep, as long as that dialog is a cruise missle or M16. I also think it would do us good to really look into why they "hate" us rather than stick with stuff like "they hate us for our freedoms.." kind of stuff.

....BTW, I hope you, Andrew, and anyone else on this board know I argue with y'all but mean you no harm....

I don't take this stuff personally nor do I mean anything personal by what I post. Just good old fashion debate. I actually appreciate hearing other people's thoughts on these matters. Stuff that makes ya think :-)

Andrew

[Devils Horse]

Wrong war. As I have said before, I have no problem with us going into Afganistan. Iraq is a completely different subject. As far as "Do you really believe opening 'a dialogue' with them will make them stop?" Yep, as long as that dialog is a cruise missle or M16. I also think it would do us good to really look into why they "hate" us rather than stick with stuff like "they hate us for our freedoms.." kind of stuff.



I don't take this stuff personally nor do I mean anything personal by what I post. Just good old fashion debate. I actually appreciate hearing other people's thoughts on these matters. Stuff that makes ya think :-)

Andrew

Right war. Same war. It's Al Queda we're fighting and they certainly aren't contained within Afghanistan. Securing that country as you mentioned before cannot be done. The geography and climate are too harsh, and the logistics too tough. The Russians couldn't do it, and unless we killed every man in the country neither could we. The Afghanis have a hard existence and they absolutely thrive on making war. They routinely took on Roosky Hind gunships with antique small arms, and from what I've read they're fierce fighters.

I believe the plan was to knock out one of the main Al Queda sponsors in Hussein (Sadam, not Barack), sow the seed of democracy in Iraq and let it take root. A lot of our soldiers have died in that effort. If the liberals take the presidency, and we pull out on the Iraqis it'll be disastrous. Iran will most likely take the country and our soldiers will have died for nothing. We've disarmed Iraq for the most part, and they won't stand a chance on their own for quite a while yet. How long I don't know, but longer than the American public has the stomach for.

[apb]

Devils Horse,

Sorry, but you still have your wars confused. It has been shown that Al Queda and Sadam were not allies, Al Queda was not in Iraq prior to the Iraq war, and the only thing that Sadam and Al Queda had in common was a dislike of Americans. Bush and co were rather disingenous when they miss lead the public into thinking that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. In the months leading upto the Iraq war, Bush would rarely mention one without the other. By the time we went into Iraq, 48% of Americans thought that Iraq was either behind the attacks or played a major role in them. It was not until the months leading up to the last election that Bush publically stated that Iraq had no part in 9-11. There are still Americans to this day that believe Iraq was partly behind 9-11.

Al Queda were based in Afganistan. The Taliban (ruled Afganistan at the time) were supporters of Al Queda. Many in Afganistan did not like the Taliban (and still don't). We are not fighting that whole country, just a small fraction. You don't have to "kill every man in the country", just Al Queda and Taliban. Rebuild the infastructure, schools, hospitals, etc, and you'll win the hearts of the people there. Once Al Queda/Taliban are out and the country is stable, Mission Accomplished. Using our resources elsewhere, and shifting our focus was foolhardy.

Iraq was for completely different reasons (WMD, iminent threat, he tried to kill my daddy, remove a brutal dictator, bring democracy, or whatever the reason of the month was-yeah, and I though Kerry was supoosed to be Mr Flip Flop), though we'll probably never know the real reasons that we are there. I have no doubt that Iraqis are much better off without Sadam dead and gone. If that country can be secured, the people will be much better off than they were before. My disagreement with all this is that I don't believe Iraq was the threat they were made out to be (sorry, but we have some **** good people in the service, no one is a match for them) and that it was not in America's best interest to start that war. Think about it, Iran and Iraq basically kept each other in check. Remove one, you now have a void and the region is less stable. The loss of American lives and $12B a month, not to mention loosing focus on the real enemy in Afganistan, is just not worth it.


"we pull out on the Iraqis it'll be disastrous. Iran will most likely take the country and our soldiers will have died for nothing. We've disarmed Iraq for the most part, and they won't stand a chance on their own for quite a while yet. How long I don't know, but longer than the American public has the stomach for."

I actually agree with you on this. While things are rather messy over there now, I'm not convinced that it is in our best interest to pull out immediately. I don't agree with us being there in the first place, but now that we've started the mess, we gotta clean it up. Bush and co basically bungled this from the get go. Hopefully whoever is commander in chief next can fix it. Obama and Clinton may talk about pulling out, but I believe that once they are in office, they'll soon see that it is not as easy as it may look on paper.

Andrew

[Devils Horse]

[QUOTE=apb;319304]Devils Horse,

Sorry, but you still have your wars confused. It has been shown that Al Queda and Sadam were not allies, Al Queda was not in Iraq prior to the Iraq war, and the only thing that Sadam and Al Queda had in common was a dislike of Americans. Bush and co were rather disingenous when they miss lead the public into thinking that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. In the months leading upto the Iraq war, Bush would rarely mention one without the other. By the time we went into Iraq, 48% of Americans thought that Iraq was either behind the attacks or played a major role in them. It was not until the months leading up to the last election that Bush publically stated that Iraq had no part in 9-11. There are still Americans to this day that believe Iraq was partly behind 9-11. [QUOTE=apb;319304]


So terrorist training camps sponsored by Hussein weren't in Iraq, and the people our soldiers have been fighting just moved in after they got there? Al Queda as I understand it is a federation of terrorists linked by the common goal of the destroying Israel and the US. I don't buy that Hussein had nothing to do with them. I guess I'd be one of those who are ignorant enough to believe a country harboring and training terrorists was partly responsible for 9-11.

[QUOTE=apb;319304] Al Queda were based in Afganistan. The Taliban (ruled Afganistan at the time) were supporters of Al Queda. Many in Afganistan did not like the Taliban (and still don't). We are not fighting that whole country, just a small fraction. You don't have to "kill every man in the country", just Al Queda and Taliban. Rebuild the infastructure, schools, hospitals, etc, and you'll win the hearts of the people there. Once Al Queda/Taliban are out and the country is stable, Mission Accomplished. Using our resources elsewhere, and shifting our focus was foolhardy. [QUOTE=apb;319304]

A bit of an oversimplification if you're saying Al Queda was only in Afghanistan. Fact is they may have had the leaders of some factions hiding there but they're scattered throughout the middle east, Iran, Iraq, and even in those countries who are our 'friends'. It's not quite as simple as cleaning up Afghanistan and you're done. If it were that straightforward why didn't they do it? The greatest victory any modern day President could claim is vctory over the middle eastern terrorists.

[QUOTE=apb;319304] Iraq was for completely different reasons (WMD, iminent threat, he tried to kill my daddy, remove a brutal dictator, bring democracy, or whatever the reason of the month was-yeah, and I though Kerry was supoosed to be Mr Flip Flop), though we'll probably never know the real reasons that we are there. I have no doubt that Iraqis are much better off without Sadam dead and gone. If that country can be secured, the people will be much better off than they were before. My disagreement with all this is that I don't believe Iraq was the threat they were made out to be (sorry, but we have some **** good people in the service, no one is a match for them) and that it was not in America's best interest to start that war. Think about it, Iran and Iraq basically kept each other in check. Remove one, you now have a void and the region is less stable. The loss of American lives and $12B a month, not to mention loosing focus on the real enemy in Afganistan, is just not worth it. [QUOTE=apb;319304]

I suppose your theory is the Bush administration is so corrupt and evil they just wanted to beat up on Iraq for no reason other than to distract the American public while leaving the real enemy in Afghanistan. Sorry I ain't buying that. It would be nice if Afghanistan housed the only real enemy.


[QUOTE=apb;319304] "we pull out on the Iraqis it'll be disastrous. Iran will most likely take the country and our soldiers will have died for nothing. We've disarmed Iraq for the most part, and they won't stand a chance on their own for quite a while yet. How long I don't know, but longer than the American public has the stomach for."

I actually agree with you on this. While things are rather messy over there now, I'm not convinced that it is in our best interest to pull out immediately. I don't agree with us being there in the first place, but now that we've started the mess, we gotta clean it up. Bush and co basically bungled this from the get go. Hopefully whoever is commander in chief next can fix it. Obama and Clinton may talk about pulling out, but I believe that once they are in office, they'll soon see that it is not as easy as it may look on paper. [QUOTE=apb;319304]

We agree on something? Maybe world peace does have a chance.

What people just can't seem to get is once the Iraqi "mess" is "cleaned up" that's far from the end of it. Now that the radical Muslims are focused on us we'll be fighting them for many years to come. Most people seem to feel if can just get out of Iraq, things'll be okay. Not so. The Dems are capitalizing on that sentiment. No long term plan with how they'll deal with Muslim terrorists, they'll just get us the heck out of Iraq. Seems to be good enough for all the teary-eyed Dem supporters to just get out of there and bring our troops home.

OB's gonna open dialogue with them, Hillary'll be too busy quashing the vast right wing conspiracy to bother with them, and honestly I'm not sure exactly what to make of McCain.

Sure wish I had the answers.

[apb]

So terrorist training camps sponsored by Hussein weren't in Iraq, and the people our soldiers have been fighting just moved in after they got there? Al Queda as I understand it is a federation of terrorists linked by the common goal of the destroying Israel and the US. I don't buy that Hussein had nothing to do with them. I guess I'd be one of those who are ignorant enough to believe a country harboring and training terrorists was partly responsible for 9-11.

Too simplistic. We started fighing those loyal to Hussein. Foreign fighters soon joined in against American troops. Al Queda and others joined in. Others sponsered by Syria and Iran joined in, possibly others. Now a big mess.

A bit of an oversimplification if you're saying Al Queda was only in Afghanistan. Fact is they may have had the leaders of some factions hiding there but they're scattered throughout the middle east, Iran, Iraq, and even in those countries who are our 'friends'. It's not quite as simple as cleaning up Afghanistan and you're done. If it were that straightforward why didn't they do it? The greatest victory any modern day President could claim is vctory over the middle eastern terrorists.

No, not what I was saying. The people who were DIRECTLY responsible for the 9/11 attacks were based in Afganistan. Yes, Al Queda and their allies are elsewhere (Sudan, Indonesia, etc.). I agree (****, stop making me do that!) it is not as simple as cleaning up Afganistan and we are done. Clean up Afganistan and you are done in Afganistan, time to move on to clean up elsewhere. Most likely, we are doing some of that clean up now, but much more quietly.

I suppose your theory is the Bush administration is so corrupt and evil they just wanted to beat up on Iraq for no reason other than to distract the American public while leaving the real enemy in Afghanistan. Sorry I ain't buying that. It would be nice if Afghanistan housed the only real enemy.

My theory is that we'll never know the real reason the Bush administration went into Iraq. We do know that all the reasons they stated just prior to the war were either trumped up or out right wrong.

What people just can't seem to get is once the Iraqi "mess" is "cleaned up" that's far from the end of it. ....

Agree again. Worled peas must be next....

OB's gonna open dialogue with them, Hillary'll be too busy quashing the vast right wing conspiracy to bother with them,

No. Obama said that he would open a dialog with Iran, and other countries. Bush has also agreed to some talks with those folks. NO ONE has said they would talk to terrorists.

Sure wish I had the answers.

Wish someone had the answers and would make it happen.

Andrew

[DJD]

Just watched a video clip of this knucklehead pastor preaching about Bill Clinton doing the black race like he did Monica L. this man is a nut case. BO said he rejects his comments.....I'm sorry, Louis F. loves you and this poser of a preacher loves you something stinks! You are judged by the company you keep.

[DJD]

This is turning on BO. The press is killing him.