My new found hope for President

thereselittleflower said:

It's not Iran launching a nuclear attack that worries me. .

It is the US and Israel launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack that worries me.


.

Click to expand...

thereselittleflower said:

It's not Iran launching a nuclear attack that worries me. .

It is the US and Israel launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack that worries me.


.

Click to expand...

thereselittleflower said:

The reason Al Qaeda is problem for the US is because of the US' support for Israel. Given all I have learned recently, which is a lot, I would say that our support for Israel is creating the greatest threat to our nation and world.

Click to expand...

stray bullet said:

That has nothing to do with it. Israel is a sympathy topic terrorists often refer to for Palestinian sympathies.

People aren't fighting the US over Israel, they are fighting us because they want the Arab world to be united under a religious government.

They need to push the west out of the middle-east completely- trade and all.

Click to expand...

thereselittleflower said:

The reason Al Qaeda is problem for the US is because of the US' support for Israel. Given all I have learned recently, which is a lot, I would say that our support for Israel is creating the greatest threat to our nation and world.

There will be those of you who will be shocked by me saying such things. There will be those of you who will lable me anti-semitic because I can no longer support our country supporting the Zionist regime in Israel, even though one cannot be against a race simply because one is against a regime. I really don't care. What I have learned is appalling and horrible, and many of you don't even have much of an idea of the reality on the ground.

Be that as it may, I don't believe that anyone here would support Israel, or suport the US supporting Israel, if they truly understood the Zionist Iron Wall philosophy and policy driving all of Israel's dealings with the Palestinians and Arabs and what it has done to US relations with the middle east (where we had no enemies before we began to support Isarel), that has been driving the Zionist treatment of the Palestinians from early last century through our day.

My gravest concern is that the presidential candidates are now thinking what was once the unthinkable, that nuclear war is a viable option in the middle east.

It is my concern that this is our greatest and most grave threat, even above abortion.

We need a president who will be able to take a strong stand in the international community, not be afraide to buck popularist opinion, stand up for justice for all in the middle east, including the Palestinians, and who will call for Israel to stop their Iron Wall policies against the Palestinians and bring real pressure to bear on them to do so.

I don't know who that would be. But that is what we need.


.

Click to expand...

PetertheRock said:

This is the most ignorant post I have ever heard. Where have you been getting your news? From Michael Moore's web site? This is insane. The reason why Al Qaeda hates the USA is because of our freedom, especially our religious freedom.

Al Qaeda and all of radical Islam want to impose Sharia law on the entire world including the USA. They will use all methods to get there way. It doesn't matter how they accomplish this and they like people like you that have your head buried so far in the sand no one would be able to dig it out.

You liberals are so open minded your brains have fallen out.

Click to expand...

thereselittleflower said:

The reason Al Qaeda is problem for the US is because of the US' support for Israel. Given all I have learned recently, which is a lot, I would say that our support for Israel is creating the greatest threat to our nation and world. .

Click to expand...

The cause most frequently adduced for anti-American feeling among Muslims today is American support for Israel. This support is certainly a factor of importance, increasing with nearness and involvement. But here again there are some oddities, difficult to explain in terms of a single, simple cause. In the early days of the foundation of Israel, while the United States maintained a certain distance, the Soviet Union granted immediate de jure recognition and support, and arms sent from a Soviet satellite, Czechoslovakia, saved the infant state of Israel from defeat and death in its first weeks of life. Yet there seems to have been no great ill will toward the Soviets for these policies, and no corresponding good will toward the United States. In 1956 it was the United States that intervened, forcefully and decisively, to secure the withdrawal of Israeli, British, and French forces from Egypt — yet in the late fifties and sixties it was to the Soviets, not America, that the rulers of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and other states turned for arms; it was with the Soviet bloc that they formed bonds of solidarity at the United Nations and in the world generally. More recently, the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran have offered the most principled and uncompromising denunciation of Israel and Zionism. Yet even these leaders, before as well as after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, when they decided for reasons of their own to enter into a dialogue of sorts, found it easier to talk to Jerusalem than to Washington. At the same time, Western hostages in Lebanon, many of them devoted to Arab causes and some of them converts to Islam, are seen and treated by their captors as limbs of the Great Satan.

Click to expand...

Fantine said:

I am 100% certain that an American born today has a much, much greater chance of dying due to lack of affordable medical care or medical insurance than from the possibility of Iranians launching a nuclear attack against us.

In another thread, a poster pointed out that the U.S. ranks 41st in life expectancy and that infant mortality for a black infant in the U.S. is the same as that of an infant born in Saudi Arabia....

http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/08/united-states-ranks-41st-in-life.html

The proof hurts, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Servus Iesu said:

Yeah. I have many fears in life. Dying at the hands of the Iranians is not one of them. As Ron Paul has said, if we could stare down thousands of nuclear warheads in the hands of Stalin (who was indeed a raving lunatic if there ever was one) we needn't live in perpetual fear of the Iranians possibly, someday, decades down the line developing a nuclear weapon which they'll never have the capability to launch at the US.

Click to expand...

InnerPhyre said:

Ron Paul's stance on defense is NOT "hold hands and sing give peace a chance." That's ridiculous. He DOES however, say that we need to stop meddling in the affairs of other nations because it makes enemies left and right and that is precisely what has happened in the Middle East since the middle of the last century.

And NO that does not mean he is blaming America. He is simply saying that other people are human beings too and they react when you mess with them, even when it's the mighty America that's doing the messing. Especially in the Middle East, where, as Reagan said, the political system is totally irrational. We have been fools to think that we could make western nations out of Middle Eastern countries. The mindset is too different there. You can't FORCE people to be free. They have to want it bad enough to shed their own blood to gain it, like the American Revolutionaries did.

Our mindset of spreading democracy throughout the world is the same as the Communist mindset last century that spread Communism all throughout Eastern Europe and Asia. "This is the way to go. Our system is best. You will adopt our system or else."

It doesn't work. I'm not saying that we should all just become isolationists and then everyone will love us. That's stupid. But it's equally stupid to think that we can dive into other nations' business, treat them like children, change the basic structure of their societies, and not incur the wrath of the native people.

If another nation tried that with us, gun owning American citizen would be running to join the fight against them.

It's our job to defend ourselves from threats against us. It's not our job to police the world, make a ton of new enemies doing so every year, and then engage in wars that can lead to stalemates at best.

Ron Paul's stance on war? Declare it in congress, give everything you have to the war effort, destroy your enemy, and come home.

That is how the United States has won wars in the past. How has the US lost wars in the past? Don't declare war. Fight a vague enemy. Fight it with one arm behind your back. Lose.

What we have given the government is carte blanche to make war forever, because we are engaged in "the war on terror." Terror will always exist. There will always be terrorists somewhere. So now we are engaged in perpetual war that will allow whoever is president to keep on attacking without the consent of congress in the form of a declaration of war. It's too vague.


Complaining about these things is not the same as "holding hands and singing give peace a chance."

Click to expand...

Fantine said:

In another thread, a poster pointed out that the U.S. ranks 41st in life expectancy and that infant mortality for a black infant in the U.S. is the same as that of an infant born in Saudi Arabia....

http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/08/united-states-ranks-41st-in-life.html

The proof hurts, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.
Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.
When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.
Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.
It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.

Click to expand...