Your URL does not even cite what you are quoting. More interesting are the topics in that URL.
•Obama Accountability Project
•Illegal Immigration
•Investigating Obamacare
•Exposing ACORN
•Financial Crisis/Fannie-Freddie Investigation
•Pelosi Air Force Scandal
•Joe the Plumber Lawsuit
•Judicial Nominations Project
•DOJ Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dismissal Investigation

Every one a hot button spin issue for right wing extremists. When do you quote patriots - also called moderates?

Mission Creep. We are not and should not be the worlds police force. Fuck them if they want to kill each other off.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6275441.story

Your wanting to believe something and have it actually be true are two different things. I can point you to a sci-fi series in which the author claims that the Yiddish word 'goy' translates to 'cattle', when in reality the word comes from the bible.

A lot of 'religious war' really had nothing to do with what is actually written in holy books. It had more to do with money, land, and power. Protestants v Catholics had a lot to do with Protestants claiming church land formerly owned by the Catholic church. The strife in Northern Ireland had almost nothing to do with religion but more to do with the political affiliations of majorities in each group and a perceived concentration of political and economic power in one group.

Is there anything explicit in the holy books of any major religion that denigrates another religion or justifies the persecution of other religions - no. Are there vague passages that can be twisted by those with an agenda and tied into cultural or political hatreds to achieve these goals - yes.

What I find twisted is that for propaganda purposes Muslim extremists are digging up myths about Jews that were started by European Christians centuries ago. Specifically blood libel, and I'm not talking about Sarah Palin.

I agree.

I just would not limit it to Muslim extremists. The anti-Muslim extremists in the US are guilty as well.

Where is Obama and the EU?

http://english.alarabiya.net/article...22/146329.html

Have you proven Gellar is wrong?

More on the killing of civilians in Syria.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/22/mo...d-in-syria-cen

Where are the drones?

The drones are busy watching Fox News.


Oh, those drones. They're bombing villages in Yemen and Pakistan.

The Syrian Government continues to kill it's citizens via it's troops. Where is the Obama Rescue plan? Why is Syria more important than Libya?

Why the hell would Obamy allow continued trade with Syria?

Forgive my curiosity, but why is America so convinced that they are responsible for "rescuing" other nations? We have seen the "rescues" done since 1870 or so (WWII and the Korean war as notable exceptions). It may not be obvious, but maybe not everyone wants your "help", also because that help always involves "provisional government".

The U.S. is not responsible for "rescuing other nations" on its own.

The U.S. as part of a broad coalition, with a mandate from the UN, can and should, under certain circumstances and on a limited basis, act to protect innocent civilians if it is believed it would not lead to greater harm or a worse outcome.

IMO, that is the case in Libya. A UN mandate, with the support of the Arab League, against a dictator that every other Arab leader would be happy to see deposed.

And not the case in Syria. There is no UN mandate and wont be because Russia, with its close ties to Syria, would veto. Syria also has close ties to Iran, Hamas in Gaza and Hezballah in Lebanon. The potential for greater harm or a worse outcome if the US, unilaterally or with a UN mandated, were to act militarily, is far more likely than in Libya. That greater harm or worse outcome being a response by Iran/Hamas/Hezballah against Israel, leading to a much greater threat of a larger war in the Middle East or an upsurge of terrorists actions in Europe and/or the US.

Obama extended Bush's trade sanctions against Syria last year that are still in place. They expire next month and would need to be extended again, which I presume will happen.

He could also freeze Syrian assets in the US, but would have little impact. Unlike Libya, Syria has few assets in the US.

This may very well be true, but this is not how it looks to the rest of the world. It looks more like America arranges coalitions, then wrecks a country, then hires "no bid" contractors to rebuild it with pieces of shit. You even electrocute your own soldiers in their barrack bathrooms, and have police stations with shit from the second floor plumbing coming out of the first floor light fixture, yes?

Or your marines find themselves guarding poppy fields, so that the heroin trade goes to the right warlord.

When America comes to "help", smart people pack up and leave home.

I agree completely with you about Iraq and the role of Halliburton and Blackwater.

I even agree with to some extent with Afghanistan and propping up the current corrupt regime.

Where I think the US can be most successful is along the model of Bosnia and now Libya, as part of a broad coalition and with a self-limiting role to protect civilians and/or support popular movements against oppressive governments but not to the extent of invading and occupying.

Bosnia is better, yes, but still had problems with American mercenaries, such as KB&R.

America would find more gratitude if they followed the French model from the revolutionary war; go in, take out the bad guy, and then leave immediately. It is when the nation being "helped" is subjected to "provisional governments" and "stabilization" that problems begin.

Building a new democracy takes more than just taking out the bad guy.

I lean towards looking at the US foreign policy in broad term using a combination of diplomacy, military assistance, intel assistance, economic aid, and other means that will help a democratic government take root and have the capacity to succeed.

Unlike the neo-con approach to foreign policy, there is no one right mix of all the above. Each engagement requires a different approach.

Correct me if I am wrong, but America did not require the French to stay. You succeeded in far worse conditions with none of the above, except diplomacy and ruinous loans.

and Europe .... Any dwellars there that can attest to this?

The world is a different place. I dont see the relevance in comparing circumstances in 18th century colonial America and 21st century Middle East.

700 Club? That is like America's Muslim Brotherhood, yes? Crazy religious people who pretend to be semi-secular?

Humans don't change...and the external conditions a country faces are more favourable to a young democracy now, anywhere in the world, then they were in North America in the 18th century.

You will have to explain this.

Most countries in the 18th century were self-supporting to a large extent. That is not the case today in a global economy, which is why all of those young and emerging democracies rely heavily on US (and other) economic aid as well as US training on basic democratic institutions and even, to some extent, military assistance.

In conclusion, I do not support an isolationist America. I also dont define America by the extremes (eg 700 club) although a dont discount their influence, particularly during the previous administration.

America faced a lack of infrastructure, hostile indigents, and was cut off from trade with the world's greatest power for several years after the American revolution. In addition, there were factional disputes and a level of official corruption that makes the modern day look like a fool's paradise.

Today, an emerging nation has the world bank, trade that beats its way to their doors, and very little in the way of external threats. The world in general is far more peaceful on a day to day level than it was even a century ago.

And I do not consider America itself to be extremist, just very confused. In fact, I have considered remaining here when my studies are complete, because America has a much better weekend than Egypt does. I won't, of course, but the idea is very tempting.

Actually, America had more natural resources than any other country in the world at the time and was the first truly democratic country to emerge in the era of colonialism. Of course, it wasnt perfect.

I would urge you to read de tocqueville's "Democracy in America"for an outsider's understanding of the American democratic experiment.


Egypt gets about $2 billion/year in military and economic aid from the US.

Are you suggesting that a new government in Egypt should decline that aid?

Yes. It is better to stand on your own.

I would bet that a more democratic government that emerges in Egypt will disagree with you.

There is no shame in taking assistance as one is in the early stages of development.

Of course they will disagree with me. Have you ever seen a politician turn down funding?

And Egypt is not exactly in the early stages of development. We are very experienced in changing governments.

Thirty years is a long time between changing governments. Am I not correct in saying that majority of Egyptians (those under 30) have never known or experienced democracy in their lifetime.

You would be more correct in saying that no living Egyptians have experienced actual democracy as you understand it.

And there's very little chance they will. Egypt is far more factionalised (spelling?) than America. We do not play well together.

This is no reason not to try, of course. But Egypt typically moves to something that more closely resembles a monarchy.

I appreciate your perspective and wish you well when you go back home!

Well said, Uday.

Or notion of Democracy and that of what the rest of the world thinks it to be are completely different. This string reinforces it.

Let's see if Obama has the balls to cut the money....

Muslim Brotherhood Warns U.S. Aid Cut May Affect Egypt’s Peace Treaty With Israel

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/musl...-treaty-israel

Save this and we could buy everybody birth control pills.

$1.3 billion is nothing compared to the costs of another middle east war. If we can keep buying peace for that small amount, I support it. I only wish we could have bought peace in Afghanistan and Iraq for a similar amount.

I don't know, sounds a little too blackmailish for me. If nothing else we need to significantly reduce this kind of aid across the board.

Yes, it's ethically and morally questionable, but my portion of that amount works out to about the same cost as a cup of Starbucks coffee per year. I'm happy to pay that to avoid war. I'd up it to 3 coffees per year if I could have avoided war in Iraq and Afghanistan too. It's nothing.

Yea, but if some people get their way you will be buying 10 coffees a year and you would be hooked and addicted to getting financial aid for everything in your life, it's a slippery slope. ;)

Russia is not our friend Obama....

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ashar_al_assad

Obama's not the one who looked in Putin's soul and liked what he saw.

Maybe, but I bet Obama gave him a blow job.

@ HM - Bwahahahahaa...

A new low... Merc's parents must be so proud.

Not a new low, but I get yelled at every time I bring up Merc's REAL low points at the Cellar.

That's because when you rake up the past you get the stench of decay.
Merc's made some gaffes, but it's not necessary to air them if you disagree with a current post. That should be enough.

I live with a woman who is happy to bring up things that happened over 20 years ago. It doesn't make for a sense of community.

My parents are dead. Thanks anyway.

Don't know if this is just hype, but there is talk that the latest bombing on Assad's security officials could prove to be a "tipping point" in the Syrian conflict. The problem is, we have no idea where this new direction will take us (civil war, genocide, democracy)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/wo...e.html?_r=1&hp


http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...s_death_spiral

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...future/259985/

Same questions from Libya apply. Will combat and death rates be long enough and large enough for the country to unite as a nation? Or will the fall of Assad only result in more civil war?

How united are the Syrian people into making a nation rather than craving power or seeking revenge? Important in all such wars is a very high death rate among all combatants.

Syria, like many countries in the middle east, has borders drawn in peace conferences by The Powers after WWI and WWII. Those borders do not respect the actual ethnic distributions on the ground, leading to nations that are no more than political facades, held together by repression of dissent.

Civil war - if this isn't already it - seems pretty much inevitable.

The Syrian rebels have me quite impressed.

They don't waste ammo firing into the air in celebration.

Their battlefield tactics are competent - teams with covering fire, orders being followed - things that were conspicuously absent in Libya.

They seem to have a coherent strategy, including seizing border crossings to friendly countries (= arms supply) and are making a stand in Aleppo.

Assad still has air power, though.

I heard this morning that they have acquired some tanks and are attacking the air bases.

NPR ran a report last week featuring Syrian rebels shooting holes in the sky after temporarily taking a check point.

Its almost as if they are being coached, trained and coordinated...
Hmm.:rolleyes:

Well, quite a few are deserters from the army.

The saudis seem to be meddling. Iran is the only local friend Assad has. And Russia and China.

Kofi has finally chucked in the towel. He's given it every effort, but it has long since been hopeless.

We'll be seeing him anon.

Every war has a strategic objective and an end game. The planning for an inevitable peace. What could Assad be thinking? Or is he that deep in denial? From this perspective, yes. But really, nobody is that naive. What are his alternatives and possible plans?

Assad didn't choose to go to war. His objective is to not lose the war somebody else started.

Defeat the rebels and rule as a tyrant? Other rulers have done it.

What PH said. He's clinging to power because that's all he knows. He doesn't give a damn about this silly "peace", he just wants to stay in power. His clique and supporters know that if the revolution wins, there's going to be pay back for decades of tyranny. #$"% 'em.

Two recent examples of why that strategy does not work were west of him. Meanwhile, Idi Amin and Baby Doc Duvalier both retired rich elsewhere. Why not learn from their examples? Why remain entrenched in a slowly decaying and apparently unwinnable situation?

Well it amazes me how many just know they are right. The so many who got angry because they just knew smoking cigarettes increase health. Or just knew Saddam had WMDs. In both cases, the facts and numbers said something completely different.

Amazing how many will insist the facts and history must be wrong. And amazing that so many of us do it.