It started with President Obama's words of "freedom"

[John Stefanyszyn]

It all started with the words of "freedom" in President Obama's 2009 UN Speech.

...and this year nations and peoples are overthrowing "anti-freedom" dictators, rulers, and leaders.

The powerful words of President Obama have caused Arab peoples, Muslims, to stand, confess, protest, fight for, and die for their belief in "self-rights" ....many times after they have just finished their prayers to Allah, the god of the Islam religion. (It is clear that they worship another "god" before Allah, for they "prayed" to Allah but did their works for another "god". )

The powerful words of freedom from President Obama have caused young people around the world to protest and stand for their "rights".
The powerful words of freedom from President Obama are continuing to cause other people, in Russia, and other nations, to stand and protest for their "freedoms and rights" against "corrupt politicians".
The powerful words of "freedom of rights" from President Obama are also being used to cause the American people to stand for their "rights".

It is written in Daniel that the last king of the north will glorify SELF WILL and will place this "god of fortresses" above the One True God and any and all other gods/beliefs.
....and that this king of the north will advance his belief to all nations

 

[Yarddog]

It all started with the words of "freedom" in President Obama's 2009 UN Speech.

WAY TO GO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

 

[florida2]

Firstly, you can't blame Obama for the Arab Spring or protests in Russia and elsewhere. I highly doubt that they think 'Oh, that Obama guy talked about freedom - let's protest!'

The Arab Spring grew out of protests in Egypt and Tunisia, initially about economic conditions (as all these things are - see fall of communism, for example).

The overthrow of dictators and creation of a more just and democratic system can only be praised and I'm proud that my country aided the Libyan rebels against Gadaffi.

If you think those are bad things, John, I am truly worried.

 

[Yarddog]

Firstly, you can't blame Obama for the Arab Spring or protests in Russia and elsewhere. I highly doubt that they think 'Oh, that Obama guy talked about freedom - let's protest!'

The Arab Spring grew out of protests in Egypt and Tunisia, initially about economic conditions (as all these things are - see fall of communism, for example).

The overthrow of dictators and creation of a more just and democratic system can only be praised and I'm proud that my country aided the Libyan rebels against Gadaffi.

If you think those are bad things, John, I am truly worried.

OH DARN! You're ruining his rants with common sense.

 

[Respecthelect]

There are unintended consequences to these wars, though. We asked Qadaffi to drop his weapons of mass destruction and let us inspect. Qadaffi did all we asked. Ceased his chemical programs, stopped trading in questionable supplies and opened his facilities to inspection. What did he get for cooperating? After we fully inspected, we killed (or had him killed) in the most disgusting manner (look it up).

Qadaffi might have been a bad guy, but he did cooperate fully on WMD's. Now we ask Iran to do the same. Guess what? The Iranians learned the lesson. If a country has WMD's America won't attack. America might pester, might embargo, might send in viruses, but we won't pull a Qadaffi on them.

The worst part is that there was never a valid justification for killing a man who cooperated. If we were really so offended that he was involved in the Lockerbie plane bombing, why didn't we kill him decades ago? Why now?

The rumor that still has legs is that Qadaffi lent Goldman a large sum (many $ Billions) at 6% interest. Goldman guaranteed the 6% in writing, counting on making much more on the housing bubble. When the bubble burst, Goldman was left owing Qadaffi principle plus 6% and they couldn't pay. So (this is where the rumor starts), Goldman called down the hall and asked that Qadaffi be killed.

Admittedly, this is a bit of a conspiracy theory, but many swear it's true. It makes sense, it fits the market and I've never heard a denial by Goldman or the Administration. It's been swept under the rug, because Qadaffi was a "bad guy." A bad guy who did everything we asked, but a bad guy nonetheless.

Whether the Goldman part is true or not, killing Qadaffi makes WMD cooperation virtually impossible now. We may live to see a middle eastern nuclear arms race, with dozens of muslim countries stockpiling thousands of nuclear bombs, missiles and torpedos, all because somebody made a rash decision.

 

[florida2]

There are unintended consequences to these wars, though. We asked Qadaffi to drop his weapons of mass destruction and let us inspect. Qadaffi did all we asked. Ceased his chemical programs, stopped trading in questionable supplies and opened his facilities to inspection. What did he get for cooperating? After we fully inspected, we killed (or had him killed) in the most disgusting manner (look it up).

Qadaffi might have been a bad guy, but he did cooperate fully on WMD's. Now we ask Iran to do the same. Guess what? The Iranians learned the lesson. If a country has WMD's America won't attack. America might pester, might embargo, might send in viruses, but we won't pull a Qadaffi on them.

The worst part is that there was never a valid justification for killing a man who cooperated. If we were really so offended that he was involved in the Lockerbie plane bombing, why didn't we kill him decades ago? Why now?

The rumor that still has legs is that Qadaffi lent Goldman a large sum (many $ Billions) at 6% interest. Goldman guaranteed the 6% in writing, counting on making much more on the housing bubble. When the bubble burst, Goldman was left owing Qadaffi principle plus 6% and they couldn't pay. So (this is where the rumor starts), Goldman called down the hall and asked that Qadaffi be killed.

Admittedly, this is a bit of a conspiracy theory, but many swear it's true. It makes sense, it fits the market and I've never heard a denial by Goldman or the Administration. It's been swept under the rug, because Qadaffi was a "bad guy." A bad guy who did everything we asked, but a bad guy nonetheless.

Whether the Goldman part is true or not, killing Qadaffi makes WMD cooperation virtually impossible now. We may live to see a middle eastern nuclear arms race, with dozens of muslim countries stockpiling thousands of nuclear bombs, missiles and torpedos, all because somebody made a rash decision.

I don't see why WMDs are being brought into this.

A bad guy who was a ruthless and murdering dictator was overthrown by his people to establish a new democracy so that they all may have better lives and Gadaffi can stop sponsoring the IRA.

WMDs was not at all the reason the West became involved in Libya - it was to help the population overthrow Gadaffi, though of course the official mission was to protect civilians. No world leader talked about WMDs being the casus belli - why are you talking about them?

 

[wpage]

Not certain Obama's word set the movement in motion...
It is good that Gods liberty and our nature for freedom is happening.

I think that Gods Spirit is in motion.
The Spirit of Free is a wonderous thing.

Thank God for freedom!

 

[99percentatheism]

WAY TO GO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

Furthering the work for Democracy started by George W. Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!