War #4 [Archive] - Simple Living Forums

puglogic

6-9-11, 6:07pm

In our garden we have bindweed. It's a noxious weed that spreads disease, chokes out useful plants, and generally makes a mess of things. Its roots go deep, it is resistant to weed killers, and it can re-sprout from even a tiny root fragment left behind. When you "go after it," with great vigor, you may kill the plant you see, but you create a hundred tiny rootlets, each of which sprouts into a new plant.

That's what "going after" Al Qaeda's martyrs is like. We spend zillions of dollars to try to eradicate them the traditional ways, and each martyr "sprouts" a dozen others, family members and friends who take up the cause as a result of our actions. Zillions of dollars that could be spent so much more wisely here on our own soil, building a stronger and more secure nation from the inside out, reducing the need for foreign oil, protecting our own borders better, and so on. I find it one of the most obscene and laughable expenditures in recent memory (right up there with the "war on drugs")

The day will come when we'll realize we can't afford any of these wars - we can only afford to protect our own, right here. At that point it'll be too late, but hey.

Zigzagman

6-9-11, 8:55pm

I say that because I have a nephew that is in Iraq today. These guys and gals do not have any choice about their deployment. It is stupid, it is all about money, and it is not making our country safer, just the opposite. I honestly think that we will never admit we were stupid to go into Iraq, that we over reacted in Afghanistan, and it is all about selling weapons, and contractors - employment. This is the only kind of job stimulus that the right-wing will support in this country. How sad is that?

Support the troops - also be sure an visit them in the VA hospitals, the mental wards, and don't forget to attend the next parade as one of the locals is buried in your community. It will make you feel better and doesn't take a bit of sacrifice - you can still go the local farmers market, be green, and celebrate your contribution to the planet.

Peace

dmc

6-9-11, 11:16pm

dmc

6-9-11, 11:18pm

Seems to me this is just an escalation of our war against Al Qaeda.

Personally I think we should go after them wherever we find them.

I'll bet there are some in L.A. Lets send the bombers in.

Zigzagman

6-10-11, 12:19am

Who would have thought that Obama would become such a war president. Must be part of the change he was talking about. It would be nice if they took control of our southern border. Maybe we could start sending drones into Mexico. And you can't blame these wars on the right-wing when the Democrats have had plenty of power to change things if they wanted to.

Agree. I am so disappointed and likewise with Hilliary. I would have never thought that "they" would be so eager to not only continue these wars but to even escalate our involvement in the Middle East. Nation building seems to be viewed as a legitimate purpose for our military by everyone in public office. Not sure what I am missing or why the public is not more outraged.

Peace

dmc

6-10-11, 8:15am

benhyr

6-10-11, 8:41am

Bring back the draft, and you'll get some outrage. Like the runaway spending, most don't have skin in the game. If 47% don't pay taxes, what do they care if the government waste's other peoples money. Same with the war, many are not involved. Maybe the news should be posting more pictures every night of those killed.

I'm sure you mean 47% don't pay federal income tax as anyone earning a paycheck pays FICA, plenty of people pay property taxes, plus anyone buying gas pays tax, if you live in a state with a sales tax and you happen to buy stuff then you're paying sales tax....

dmc

6-10-11, 9:38am

I'm sure you mean 47% don't pay federal income tax as anyone earning a paycheck pays FICA, plenty of people pay property taxes, plus anyone buying gas pays tax, if you live in a state with a sales tax and you happen to buy stuff then you're paying sales tax....

And many actually get money or services free from the government. And if your not paying federal income tax I would think that your probably not paying much in state taxes either. But everyone still gets hit with sales tax, and with Social Security there is still the hope that you'll get something back. I'm just saying many don't have "skin in the game" in regards to the military, and the budget, so they just don't care.

Zigzagman

6-10-11, 8:42pm

they just don't care.

Regardless of the reason, I think that is exactly the situation. Don't care as long as there is nothing in it for them. Welcome to America in the 21st century. If that were not the case we would have demanded a end to this military insanity long ago. I honestly believe that people are more interested in jobs regardless of what those jobs are or who is affected by them. For the most part, it is just too damn easy to watch the nightly news and make a few comments - for or against - than to even question the foreign policy of this nation. And if you do you are considered unpatriotic by a majority. This madness will never end until we are bankrupt.

Peace

The Storyteller

6-10-11, 9:17pm

Seems mine is a minority opinion. :)

Zigzagman

6-10-11, 11:52pm

Seems mine is a minority opinion. :)

I think it would be the majority opinion of the American public but obviously a minority of the SLN crowd.:)

Had we not been mislead into going into Iraq for the last 8 years with nothing but debt and soldiers lives to show for it (not counting the civilian costs) or having been in Afghanistan with the same mentioned issues then I think there might be more confidence in our present actions.

I simply view almost everything that we do in a military context these days as driven by greed. We have been successful in creating generations of terrorists by our actions instead of viewing 9/11 as a terrorist attack and acted accordingly. With this stupidity we also now have the Patriot Act, a Global War, and hundreds of thousands of not only military lives at risk but also the same number of private contractors with their hand in the till.

At what point will this ideological war end? I think with economic and moral bankruptcy. Shameful.

Peace

freein05

6-11-11, 1:05pm

I have to agree with Zig and DMC Americans just don't care unless it affects them directly. I think this I don't care about wars started with the Korean War. I sure know it was there during the Vietnam War. Me and my brother were drafted 2 months apart and our conservative parents were very upset because they had a lot of skin in the game/war. But the war was still going when we got out of the Army and we too lost interest in the Wars. Thank God for the war protestors I think they had a lot to do with us finally getting out of Nam.

This support the troops I feel is a government strategy to keep protestors at bay. We are killing as many baby's today in the middle east as we ever did in Vietnam and yet you don't hear any Americans protesting about the baby killing.

DMC were did you stand on Vietnam war. Also just got back from Germany and was on the autobahn going a little over 100 mph and moved over for a Porsche to pass he must have been going 150mph.

Florence

6-11-11, 3:07pm

We have no money for firemen, police, or teachers but we have money for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and coming soon back to Somalia. Sometimes I just want to pull my hair out. The military-industrial complex is able to do it only because we are paying for it with borrowed money and there is no draft. It is so sad that those beautiful young men and women will be paying for it with their lives, limbs, and minds.

Yppej

6-12-11, 4:55pm

It's enough to make a liberal like me vote for Ron Paul.

The Storyteller

6-12-11, 6:59pm

I don't really understand what you folks mean by "no skin in the game", or what you are implying when you say that. Before I shoot from the lip, would some of you mind elaborating? What do you mean and what point are you trying to make?

Zigzagman

6-12-11, 7:54pm

When I use the phrase "No skin in the game" I mean no "self" in the "commitment, task, decision". When it comes to this thread I think it is a good description of the public at large who has a very removed opinion with regard to our governments use of armed forces or war or whatever you would like to call Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya?

The idea is that if you have a stake in something then you are more likely to pay attention than if not. I think Vietnam is a good example. Because the public was subject to "the draft" then they usually had to make a decision as a 18 year old - join, volunteer to avoid being drafted and placed, get a deferment, object, use influence to join the National Guard (Bush), etc.

A very small group of the American public even knows these "conflicts" are going on, they seldom ever even read anything about them or in little detail, the ugliness is hidden from the public (bodies, injured, disabled, etc). The cost is probably mentioned more than anything else these days becuase of the economic situation and call for austerity.

Same goes for Medicare, SS... the latest ploy by our political heroes is to tell those that are "close to qualifying" for these social programs they will not be affected. Easy to vote for or against something that will not affect you - "You have no skin in the game".

Peace

The Storyteller

6-13-11, 9:27am

When I use the phrase "No skin in the game" I mean no "self" in the "commitment, task, decision".

Okay, pretty much what I thought you all meant but wanted to clarify it before I respond.

I'm going to resist the temptation of suggesting because you said this, you mean me, although that could be the interpretation and generally is the one taken in this corner of the forum. I will therefore assume you mean someone else.

Because I got plenty of "skin in the game". More than anyone in this forum, probably, or at least most of you. Not only do I have family on foreign soil, I live in a military town. Every day I see these young warriors who have to engage in these conflicts, and I see their spouses and their children. Children who have to see mommy or dad off to foreign wars they themselves don't understand.

Add to that, half of my closest friends are either military or retired military. One just got back from his fourth tour of duty Afganistan/Iraq. I remember at his shipping out party over a year ago, looking into his eyes and seeing what I expected... 30 years in the Army, ready to retire, and this could be it.

So, let me assure you and the others, it is quite possible for one to have skin in the game and still hold the views I do.

Iraq was a gigantic mistake, but other than that I support our involvement. Al Qaeda declared war on us, not us on them. There is no country in that war, just an organization. No country to defeat, so no one to bring to surrender. Until they stop fighting us, we go after them until they are no longer able to effectively operate. In my view, that means going after them wherever they are.

And Free, the one time a guy called me a baby killer was in the 70s at the end of the Vietnam conflict and I whipped his ass. But I could see it in the eyes of many others. I think that kind of crap is counterproductive and unfair. I was just a young Marine doing what I considered to be my duty. A kid, really. I was no baby killer.

And neither are these kids today.

freein05

6-13-11, 11:28am

Storyteller don't misunderstand me. I got out of the Army in the Fall of 1968 and started college and faced the whole war protest movement in collage as a veteran. After the war I became a man of peace and would not whip anybody's ass. I do believe the war protest movement helped end the war along with the ever increasing troops dieing. The Pentagon papers that spelled out that even the top people in government knew we were sending men out to die when they knew there was no chance to win.

Do we need a new set of Pentagon papers today?

The Storyteller

6-13-11, 11:31am

Storyteller don't misunderstand me.

Then don't use that phrase.

I'm fine with protest. But don't blame the young men and women who are serving and dying for us for our foreign policies.

Zigzagman

6-13-11, 1:41pm

I personally think this nation is going through what I call "Vietnam Guilt". That war was a bogus as all the other wars we have fought in the last 50 years but because of the mass protest to end it by our society at large then many Vets came to fell that they were scapecoats and political fodder. I served in Vietnam also and came back in almost one piece to go to school through the GI Bill and I think in retrospect it totally changed my life. I smoked my first weed there, I made lifelong friends there, and became more active in politics because of my experiences there.

I personally wish that everyone would pay as much attention to the actions of our politicians that place our soldiers in harm's way as much as they do in their efforts to "Support the Troops". IMHO, the best way to "Support the Troops" is to make sure that they and their families are not subject to political chess by those trying to represent us. It seems that we have never found a war lately that we couldn't support - now that is pretty sad.

Also - I went to a retirement gathering the other day and noticed that I had a hard time remembering names and even faces of some of the people I worked with for over 30 years. In the military you will never forget a face or a person that you served with in combat no matter how long it has been. The military is a true brotherhood because you are all equal and depend on each other, regardless of race, color, religion, or politics. I wish we could somehow transfer that sense of "community" into our society!

BTW - Freein05 deserves a little more respect than that last statement, Storyteller - he earned it!

Peace

The Storyteller

6-13-11, 2:17pm

He deserves no such thing.

He has the legal right to say whatever he wants, but nobody "earns" the right to call our warriors baby killers.

freein05

6-13-11, 6:12pm

The truth is babies were killed and are being killed in our wars not by the soldiers but by the politicians that sent them to war. That is what I meant. Many comrades I served with have their name on the wall of granite. I think many times of the 50,000 plus young men whose name are on the wall and never had a chance to grow old and enjoy life like I have.

We should declare victory in all of our current wars and get out just like we did in Vietnam!

The Storyteller

6-13-11, 11:04pm

The truth is babies were killed and are being killed in our wars not by the soldiers but by the politicians that sent them to war. That is what I meant.

Thanks for the clarification. I take it all back.

Might want to be careful tossing that phrase around, though, even to make an inference different from what it generally means. It is very offensive to some, and obscures your point rather than makes it.

Gregg

6-14-11, 3:40pm

My gratitude to anyone who ever wore the uniform is sincere and heart felt, but I would be thrilled if none of you, or your grandsons, ever had to shoot at more than a target again. Most people that get caught up in most conflicts, babies or otherwise, are innocents. Collateral damage is tragedy. It is too high a price to pay. We all know war doesn't make any sense. What we have to do is create an environment in which war doesn't make any sense for our politicians.

freein05

6-14-11, 7:21pm

Gregg this veteran agrees with you 110%.

dmc

6-17-11, 2:48pm

DMC were did you stand on Vietnam war. Also just got back from Germany and was on the autobahn going a little over 100 mph and moved over for a Porsche to pass he must have been going 150mph.

Except for an uncle, who was in the Air Force at the time, I didn't really think much about it. I wasn't worried about the draft as I was still in high school, and then it was over by the time I went to college. I was more interested in girls at the time. Much like many I think feel today about our various wars. It just doesn't affect them directly.

Ive only been up to about 135mph in one of my cars. It was a corvette I had at the time. I was foolishly chasing a friend of mine that also had one. I slowed down pretty quick when I got to thinking what the highway patrol would think about us if we were stopped. Even if it was legal, 150mph is to fast for me these days. And I'm tired of getting Christmas cards from the traffic lawyers.

Zigzagman

6-17-11, 4:52pm

Military spends more to air condition tents than NASA’s entire budget

by Jess Zimmerman (http://www.grist.org/people/Jess+Zimmerman)
17 Jun 2011 1:15 PM

Steve Anderson, a retired brigadier general who was Petraeus' chief logistician in Iraq, says (http://www.theworld.org/2010/07/military-base-close-to-the-front/) that the Pentagon spends $20 billion a year just to air condition tents and temporary buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's more than NASA's entire annual budget.
There's an easy fix, says Anderson: Spray tents with polyurethane foam. An existing $95 million contract to spray-insulate tents is providing $1 billion in cost-avoidance, Anderson says. But insulating tends instead of air conditioning them is still not official military policy.

Peace

nswef

6-18-11, 6:34pm

How about just get them out of there in the first place??? No need for air conditioned tents.

ApatheticNoMore

6-19-11, 2:00am

The war in Yemen is serious:

"The Central Intelligence Agency is building a secret air base in the Middle East to serve as a launching pad for strikes in Yemen using armed drones, an American official said Tuesday.

The construction of the base is a sign that the Obama administration is planning an extended war in Yemen"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/world/middleeast/15yemen.html?_r=1

Obviously, you don't build a base unless you are in it for the long haul. Now we have wars that are not only not approved but not even DISCUSSED for the most part and yet they are likely planning them to last years and years. Really the empire operates without any need of our approval or anything else, although it needs our money basically (and not just through taxation).

Heaven knows what black budget such bases are funded out of (it probably is black budget).

The Storyteller

6-19-11, 11:22am

Second paragraph from the piece...

The construction of the base is a sign that the Obama administration is planning an extended war in Yemen against an affiliate of Al Qaeda that has repeatedly tried to carry out terrorist plots against the United States.

We are not at war with Yemen, just as we are not at war with Pakistan. We are at war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their buddies.

I also note both here and in Libya we aren't even using troops. Just drones. So, other arguments against such warfare aside (and we are for certain opening a can of worms with these drones), one just can't make the argument we are putting our troops in harm's way.

creaker

6-19-11, 11:36am

"We are not at war with Yemen, just as we are not at war with Pakistan. We are at war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their buddies."

I don't think the US would take it that way if it happened on our soil. Say for example, Mexico carrying out "surgical" drone or bomb attacks on our side of the border in their war with the drug cartels.

The Storyteller

6-19-11, 1:44pm

"We are not at war with Yemen, just as we are not at war with Pakistan. We are at war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their buddies."

I don't think the US would take it that way if it happened on our soil.
Except that is precisely how it is seen by the government of Yemen.

ApatheticNoMore

6-19-11, 2:16pm

And innocent people get killed by that surgical drone bombing all the time. Really what if another country took up surgical drone bombing in the U.S., but it was aimed at street gangs, many hardened street gangsters were killed and noone cried too many crocodile tears over them, but every now and then, as a reoccurring phenomena, a wedding in the U.S. of innocent people with no connection with street gangs whatsoever got bombed.

The Storyteller

6-19-11, 7:26pm

Civilian casualties are probably the worst thing about any war. But my point still stands... we are not at war with Yemen. We are at war with Al Qaeda and have been invited (allowed?) in by the host country.

But I am truly curious, what do we do about Al Qaeda? Just let them operate wherever they wish, even if they are making every effort to attack us? We have severely weakened them. They are on the ropes and losing safe havens. Do we leave them alone and let them reconstitute?

Truly, truly curious.

Zigzagman

6-19-11, 8:57pm

But I am truly curious, what do we do about Al Qaeda? Just let them operate wherever they wish, even if they are making every effort to attack us? We have severely weakened them. They are on the ropes and losing safe havens. Do we leave them alone and let them reconstitute?

Truly, truly curious.

I think the first thing we do is quit being the occupiers of their country. There is no way that the US can be the "good guys" after 10 years of our occupation in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have the most powerful military in the world, we spend more than all of the world combined on our military and yet we are still 10 years in the middle east - not counting our presence in most of the other nation of the middle east.There is something wrong about that story. We have lost billions of taxpayer dollars in both countries and I don't see anyone actively worrying about it. When I say billions, I mean a thousand million - we through these numbers around like they don't matter. Well, they do!!! Just in our local school distracit this year we had a tax increase simply because we had a 1.5 million shortfall. We are talking about billions.

We simply cannot afford this "war on terror" it is not making us safer and is is spending more than we can afford as a nation.

We made this war and it is time to end it.

Peace

The Storyteller

6-19-11, 11:32pm

But we weren't occupying anyone when they attacked us multiple times over a number of years. So, I don't see doing nothing is going to change anything for the better.

Gregg

6-20-11, 2:53pm

It does seem that if we end all occupation in the Arab world it would diminish almost all of the reason the various Islamic factions have to target the US. I do have serious reservations about the reaction of the average taxpayer when we lose our tenuous grip on the oil supply coming out of the middle east. The consequences of staying in are real and not hard to figure out, but there ARE very real consequences that come with pulling out as well.

The Storyteller

6-20-11, 8:24pm

Zigzagman

6-21-11, 9:47am

I can see no real reason for either the Iraq or Afganistan massive troop deployment. It appears that the US has made a tragic error in judgment by invading Iraq and Afganistan. We acted out of emotion instead of clear thinking about the nature of this threat to our country. With the largest and most powerful military ever on the planet we continue these wars with a rag-tag group of fighters unable to use our technology and fire power to "kill our way to victory". I think with our continued occupation we are just making the problem worse.

I have a nephew presently deployed in Iraq who basically spends the days deciding how and what to give away or leave behind. He is on skype with this DW and children everyday as he sits in his air conditioned CHU (containerized housing unit). I call that an occupation not a war.

We have created one giant mess because of our goal of revenge not justice. There is no easy way out and we will pay for years for this strategic mistake. But one way or another it will come to an end - probably more for economic reasons than anything else.

War has become a video game for most of America - something we pay attention to at our convenience - then dismiss when it becomes unpleasant.

The biggest tragedy of all is the position that we have put our soldiers and military leaders in as they once again loyally follow the leadership of this nation.

Support the Troops - bring'em home and vote out these politicians on both sides of the aisle that continue to cater to the Military Industrial Complex.

Peace

Gregg

6-21-11, 10:27am

A lot of these extremists object to our westernizing influence on Islamic culture. We are the Great Whore. Our entertainment industry, our fashions, our economic expansionism, our perceived morality (or lack of same). None of that is going away whether we stay in these countries or not. We are hated as much for what we are as what we do. There is a reason they targeted the World Trade Center twice.

If we let them off the ropes now, they will merely reconstitute and come right back at us. It can certainly be argued we have greatly overreached in many ways, but I don't see how anyone can argue that we just back off completely. Doing nothing is not going to make them go away.

I actually believe that you are exactly correct in that we have to keep going after al Qaeda. With that group it really does boil down to us or them because they won't stop until either they are finished or we are. It wouldn't bother me much if the President turned all the SEAL teams loose on them all over the world.

The Taliban is a little different animal in that it is not strictly a terrorist organization. To take out the Taliban would be somewhat like taking out fundamentalist Christians in the US. We would only strengthen their cause if we tried because the tactic would have to involve further occupation of several countries. The strategy of winning over the people is and will continue to be FAR more effective than direct confrontation with a group like that.

I have family living in Pakistan, in Peshawar, pretty much on the border with the tribal areas. Talking with them gives me a little perspective that most people aren't privy to. I will just use Pakistan as an example for much of the Muslim world. It really pays to keep some things in perspective. There are about 180,000,000 people in Pakistan. It is estimated there are around 60,000 active Taliban members there. That's 1 out of every 3,000 people. They are not a majority, to say the least. Most of the other 2,999 people are NOT sympathetic to the Taliban's cause. They WANT the western entertainment, the fashions, the opportunity of capitalism, etc. The demand for western culture is incredible there.

The Taliban is a group of clerics and their followers who's influence is slipping away because their interpretations of the Qur'an no longer work for most of the people in that society. Western culture is a scapegoat for the Taliban; an easy target to pick out to say it is ruining their way of life. There are 1000 other examples in history of people willing to use ANY means as they desperately try to hold on to power. This isn't any different. They are still influential, but most of that now comes from fear of their tactics, not from followers of their beliefs. Ask yourself this, would you be willing to follow a group that just blew up your local grocery store and killed a bunch of your neighbors? The Pakistani, Afghan and other Muslim people don't, as a rule, have many resources and it is dangerous to take a public stand with fanatics running around, but the sentiment turned against the Taliban as soon as they started trying to lead by intimidation. Its only a matter of time until it becomes so unfashionable to be a member of the Taliban that they dwindle down to nothing of consequence.

peggy

6-21-11, 10:53am

I actually believe that you are exactly correct in that we have to keep going after al Qaeda. With that group it really does boil down to us or them because they won't stop until either they are finished or we are. It wouldn't bother me much if the President turned all the SEAL teams loose on them all over the world.

The Taliban is a little different animal in that it is not strictly a terrorist organization. To take out the Taliban would be somewhat like taking out fundamentalist Christians in the US. We would only strengthen their cause if we tried because the tactic would have to involve further occupation of several countries. The strategy of winning over the people is and will continue to be FAR more effective than direct confrontation with a group like that.

I have family living in Pakistan, in Peshawar, pretty much on the border with the tribal areas. Talking with them gives me a little perspective that most people aren't privy to. I will just use Pakistan as an example for much of the Muslim world. It really pays to keep some things in perspective. There are about 180,000,000 people in Pakistan. It is estimated there are around 60,000 active Taliban members there. That's 1 out of every 3,000 people. They are not a majority, to say the least. Most of the other 2,999 people are NOT sympathetic to the Taliban's cause. They WANT the western entertainment, the fashions, the opportunity of capitalism, etc. The demand for western culture is incredible there.

The Taliban is a group of clerics and their followers who's influence is slipping away because their interpretations of the Qur'an no longer work for most of the people in that society. Western culture is a scapegoat for the Taliban; an easy target to pick out to say it is ruining their way of life. There are 1000 other examples in history of people willing to use ANY means as they desperately try to hold on to power. This isn't any different. They are still influential, but most of that now comes from fear of their tactics, not from followers of their beliefs. Ask yourself this, would you be willing to follow a group that just blew up your local grocery store and killed a bunch of your neighbors? The Pakistani, Afghan and other Muslim people don't, as a rule, have many resources and it is dangerous to take a public stand with fanatics running around, but the sentiment turned against the Taliban as soon as they started trying to lead by intimidation. Its only a matter of time until it becomes so unfashionable to be a member of the Taliban that they dwindle down to nothing of consequence.

Well that's certainly good to know Gregg. It is good to get a perspective on things. Iraq was a mistake, but going after al Qaeda is something we have to do I'm afraid.
Actually, I still trust Obama and his judgement. He knows stuff that would make our hair curl and keep us up nights babbling in the corner. We have to trust him, to a point obviously, because of that knowledge. Plus, the world kind of likes him, so maybe he can get stuff done that a cowboy president couldn't.
I think, when Bush was president, his arrogant swagger and attitude towards the rest of the world made it easy for the world to unite in their hate of us. Not so much with Obama. They need to come up with other reasons and maybe that's one reason the Taliban is losing grip with your families area. As you said, disdain of our culture isn't enough.
I hope your family is safe, Gregg. And keep posting their perspective. We need that.

Alan

6-21-11, 12:14pm

Plus, the world kind of likes him, so maybe he can get stuff done that a cowboy president couldn't.
I think, when Bush was president, his arrogant swagger and attitude towards the rest of the world made it easy for the world to unite in their hate of us. Not so much with Obama.

Yes, our enemies love us more:

"To our son, his excellency, Mr Barack Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed." ~ Muammar Gaddafi

and our friends think we're just peachy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2011/05/daily_view_president_obamas_eu.html).

"Obama doesn't have to give us anything, of course. He knows that merely visiting Britain boosts our Government and head of state, the Queen. Cameron and co can pretend the 'special relationship' still exists. The Crown takes comfort in being honoured by the head of a former colony that chose to fight us for its independence.

"The President's state visit here, followed by France, will provide upbeat media coverage at home and valuable video that his re-election team will use to persuade U.S. voters in 2012 that Obama is loved and respected by leaders world-wide.

"So it's wham, bam, thank you, ma'am. As always."

freein05

6-21-11, 1:08pm

Greeg I agree totally with your post.

loosechickens

6-21-11, 2:47pm

Gregg......enlightening post. We tend, often, in this country, to, because we really don't understand some of these cultures, to paint with a broad brush, and confuse the views of a very vocal minority as being indicative of the many. Always nice to get some perspective from people who have family or friends in groups or areas, to realize that there are infinite shades of grey......

Thanks......

peggy

6-21-11, 3:37pm

Yes, our enemies love us more:

and our friends think we're just peachy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2011/05/daily_view_president_obamas_eu.html).

Quoting yourself Alan? Really? Gee, I suppose I could make up some damaging 'quotes' too. And of course I'll put it in blue boxes so it will look real important and official!

OH, and just so you know, cause I guess you missed it somehow, Obama isn't Gaddafi's son.(or maybe this is a new spin on the birther thing) Just cause somebody somewhere said it, doesn't make it true. Doesn't make them BFF. I'm sure I can find a quote saying Bush is a flea on a dogs butt. ;)

You know, it really isn't important for the world to hate us to be a successful country. Quite the opposite is true in fact. In the grown up world of political diplomacy, swaggering around with a six shooter strapped to your hip, figuratively or literally, won't get you anywhere. I realize the right wing measures their success by their enemies, but that's a rather childish and dangerous measure of success. But I suppose it plays well on bumper stickers.

Alan

6-21-11, 4:01pm

Quoting yourself Alan? Really? Gee, I suppose I could make up some damaging 'quotes' too. And of course I'll put it in blue boxes so it will look real important and official!

OH, and just so you know, cause I guess you missed it somehow, Obama isn't Gaddafi's son.(or maybe this is a new spin on the birther thing) Just cause somebody somewhere said it, doesn't make it true. Doesn't make them BFF. I'm sure I can find a quote saying Bush is a flea on a dogs butt. ;)

Peggy, dontcha just hate it when satire goes whizzing right past your head and you don't even notice?

Look at the word "peachy" and notice that it is a different color than the rest of the text. This indicates a link to another source. (I could teach you how to do that now that you know what it is. Just let me know.) If you click on that link, it will magically take you to another place. I thought you'd enjoy it because it's from outside this country which gives it legitimacy in many eyes. You know, all those non-Americans who love us so much post-Bush.

As for the "Obama isn't Gaddafi's son" thing, you'd have to talk to Mr Gaddafi about that since it's his quote from a letter he sent to our President. I can send you a link for that too if you're interested.

Oh hell, looking stuff up is hard, here's a link (one of many) for you, it's from India so you won't think it's a right wing thing and I'll not embed it into the text so you know what it is.>8) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-19/middle-east/29145474_1_muammar-gaddafi-libyan-leader-al-qaida