I voted this morning

[lovinthehd]

Clinton vowed to continue Obama's legacy. If you consider how destabilized Europe is now, the Middle East in turmoil and ruin, it's hard to imagine it getting any worse.

That has nothing to do with the awful position GWB put us in? It's all Obama's fault? Really?

 

[Chu Gai]

That has nothing to do with the awful position GWB put us in? It's all Obama's fault? Really?

Well, let's go with that enormously oversimplistic analysis of history suitable for sound bites and billboards.
Obama, including European countries and other participants could have insisted and just stayed in Iraq after the fall of Sadam. They could have acted as a stabilizing force to keep the Sunnis safe from the retaliation of the Shia population. I see that as a better alternative to just hitting the road.
Further, if we acknowledge that as much of a cocksucker Sadam was, his existence was preferable to the carnage that has occurred, what was the point of destabilizing Lybia?
The point is if what Bush did was wrong, what did we and the world gain by repeating it?

 

[KEW]

Well, let's go with that enormously oversimplistic analysis of history suitable for sound bites and billboards.
Obama, including European countries and other participants could have insisted and just stayed in Iraq after the fall of Sadam. They could have acted as a stabilizing force to keep the Sunnis safe from the retaliation of the Shia population. I see that as a better alternative to just hitting the road.
Further, if we acknowledge that as much of a cocksucker Sadam was, his existence was preferable to the carnage that has occurred, what was the point of destabilizing Lybia?
The point is if what Bush did was wrong, what did we and the world gain by repeating it?

Perhaps Bush and Obama had the same advisers at the pentagon?
It was an ill-contrived war and both presidents were wanting desperately to cut their losses.
I don't think our culture is very well positioned to understand the feuds and other factors amongst the Iraqi factions to appreciate how quickly the momentum and strength our troops established would be dissipated...though it sometimes seems we are getting closer to that mindset.

 

[cel4145]

Perhaps Bush and Obama had the same advisers at the pentagon?
It was an ill-contrived war and both presidents were wanting desperately to cut their losses.
I don't think our culture is very well positioned to understand the feuds and other factors amongst the Iraqi factions to appreciate how quickly the momentum and strength our troops established would be dissipated...though it sometimes seems we are getting closer to that mindset.

I don't think our government has ever understood the middle east because over the decades we have gone from meddling in their governments to invasion. The only way to come out ahead is not to play. Military conflict in that region has been going on for hundreds of years. If we are there, whether as a peace keeping force or just providing support to one side, the radicals will turn their attention to us because we are worse than their neighbors in their eyes. If we leave them alone, after a while, they'll forget about us and fight amongst themselves.

 

[shadyJ]

I don't think our government has ever understood the middle east because over the decades we have gone from meddling in their governments to invasion. The only way to come out ahead is not to play. Military conflict in that region has been going on for hundreds of years. If we are there, whether as a peace keeping force or just providing support to one side, the radicals will turn their attention to us because we are worse than their neighbors in their eyes. If we leave them alone, after a while, they'll forget about us and fight amongst themselves.

I take your point about avoiding military conflict in the middle east, but, more broadly, it is impossible not to be involved. We may be oil-independent now, but that won't last forever. Also, for better or worse, we are allies with Isreal, and that necessarily involves us into their politics. But our largest presence is through our media. Our biggest export is our culture, and our movies, our music, our publications are everywhere. It is impossible to avoid anywhere you go in the world. Our culture espouses our values, and that is unavoidably making a political statement. As long as we export our culture, we will be vilified by reactionary groups the world over. There is no such thing as 'leaving them alone'. We would have to cease to exist for that to occur.

 

[KEW]

We taxpayers have been subsidizing the cost of a reliable supply of oil for decades.
I don't think we'd have much interest in keeping an aircraft carrier or two around the gulf were it not for their oil!
That (mostly) reliable supply of oil is pretty important to the stability and ability of our country to function as it does, so on the one hand I agree with it, but on the other, if we were paying a bit more at the pump we would have economic incentive to use less and not be so ridiculously dependent and stuck with our Gulf entanglements (which has resulted in us making deals which have pissed off about everyone in the Gulf at one point or another).

 

[lovinthehd]

Well, let's go with that enormously oversimplistic analysis of history suitable for sound bites and billboards.
Obama, including European countries and other participants could have insisted and just stayed in Iraq after the fall of Sadam. They could have acted as a stabilizing force to keep the Sunnis safe from the retaliation of the Shia population. I see that as a better alternative to just hitting the road.
Further, if we acknowledge that as much of a cocksucker Sadam was, his existence was preferable to the carnage that has occurred, what was the point of destabilizing Lybia?
The point is if what Bush did was wrong, what did we and the world gain by repeating it?

Talk about simplistic. I was referring to the idiocy of Bush going into Iraq in the first place after 9/11....

 

[cel4145]

I take your point about avoiding military conflict in the middle east, but, more broadly, it is impossible not to be involved. We may be oil-independent now, but that won't last forever. Also, for better or worse, we are allies with Isreal, and that necessarily involves us into their politics. But our largest presence is through our media. Our biggest export is our culture, and our movies, our music, our publications are everywhere. It is impossible to avoid anywhere you go in the world. Our culture espouses our values, and that is unavoidably making a political statement. As long as we export our culture, we will be vilified by reactionary groups the world over. There is no such thing as 'leaving them alone'. We would have to cease to exist for that to occur.

We like to blame the antagonism toward the US on our culture, but the blame resides on our meddling in middle eastern politics that began in the 1950s. Some of that hatred has transferred to the presence of our culture in that area of the world, but it's also because our culture reminds them that we are meddling in their region. If Americans would accept the responsibility for our bullying actions in the region, we'd understand this.

 

[cel4145]

We taxpayers have been subsidizing the cost of a reliable supply of oil for decades.
I don't think we'd have much interest in keeping an aircraft carrier or two around the gulf were it not for their oil!
That (mostly) reliable supply of oil is pretty important to the stability and ability of our country to function as it does, so on the one hand I agree with it, but on the other, if we were paying a bit more at the pump we would have economic incentive to use less and not be so ridiculously dependent and stuck with our Gulf entanglements (which has resulted in us making deals which have pissed off about everyone in the Gulf at one point or another).

Sure. And that's one of the best arguments for developing renewable energy. Less dependence on oil from foreign governments.

Of course, between the oil companies and the military-industrial complex's vested interest in the middle east, doubt we'll make much progress on renewable energy since the US government is going to start denying climate change again.

 

[highfigh]

I don't think our government has ever understood the middle east because over the decades we have gone from meddling in their governments to invasion. The only way to come out ahead is not to play. Military conflict in that region has been going on for hundreds of years. If we are there, whether as a peace keeping force or just providing support to one side, the radicals will turn their attention to us because we are worse than their neighbors in their eyes. If we leave them alone, after a while, they'll forget about us and fight amongst themselves.

Do you know anything about the Barbary Pirates? They brought the fight to others, nobody went to them to start it. Still, none of this would be happening if the new kid on the religious block didn't think they got it right, everyone else is wrong and they should die if they don't convert or submit. Their view is that the Judeo-Christian interpretations of the scriptures are wrong and Islam is the only correct version but as languages evolve/devolve, I don't know how the logic can be correct if Islam came about more than 600 years after 0 C.E. The stupid part is that all three religions are considered Abrahamic and the same writings are at the core of all three.

 

[cel4145]

Their view is that the Judeo-Christian interpretations of the scriptures are wrong and Islam is the only correct version but as languages evolve/devolve, I don't know how the logic can be correct if Islam came about more than 600 years after 0 C.E. The stupid part is that all three religions are considered Abrahamic and the same writings are at the core of all three.

I'm pretty sure the Christians also think the Muslims and the Jews are wrong, and the Jews think the Muslims and the Christians are wrong. The problem seems to be that they are all wrong, at least that's what me and the Buddhists think

 

[KEW]

The stupid part is that all three religions are considered Abrahamic and the same writings are at the core of all three.

That just demonstrates how people have taken the writings and modified/adapted their interpretations to fit their own situation/objectives. Of course you will also see that within the religions. All three have extremist factions as well as more relaxed/tolerant factions. And not that far from me we have Evangelical (Christian) Churches that do the Snake Handling thing!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling

I'm pretty sure the Christians also think the Muslims and the Jews are wrong, and the Jews think the Muslims and the Christians are wrong. The problem seems to be that they are all wrong, at least that's what me and the Buddhists think

Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy. As such, I'm not sure you can say it outright disagrees with any of the religions.
Certainly some of the dogma of religion is not in accord with the philosophy of Buddha, but Buddha never claimed to be more than just a human being or to have any direct awareness of God or the word of God. The three religions above all claim to uniquely know the truth of God.

 

[shadyJ]

Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy. As such, I'm not sure you can say it outright disagrees with any of the religions.
Certainly some of the dogma of religion is not in accord with the philosophy of Buddha, but Buddha never claimed to be more than just a human being or to have any direct awareness of God or the word of God. The three religions above all claim to uniquely know the truth of God.

I don't think you will find much agreement with the statement that Bhuddism is a philosophy rather than a religion. Maybe certain secular strains of Bhuddism, but on the whole it is most certainly a religion, and most of its adherents treat it as such.

 

[KEW]

I don't think you will find much agreement with the statement that Bhuddism is a philosophy rather than a religion. Maybe certain secular strains of Bhuddism, but on the whole it is most certainly a religion, and most of its adherents treat it as such.

And once again the original message gets distorted to fit the needs and objectives of the "followers"...

 

[cel4145]

Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy. As such, I'm not sure you can say it outright disagrees with any of the religions.
Certainly some of the dogma of religion is not in accord with the philosophy of Buddha, but Buddha never claimed to be more than just a human being or to have any direct awareness of God or the word of God. The three religions above all claim to uniquely know the truth of God.

Whether or not you or others classify Buddhism as a religion, I imagine we could agree that Buddhists do not believe in the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim religions, which was my point. Which of the three is less "logical," as highfigh is arguing, only makes sense to someone who has faith in one of the other two.

 

[highfigh]

I'm pretty sure the Christians also think the Muslims and the Jews are wrong, and the Jews think the Muslims and the Christians are wrong. The problem seems to be that they are all wrong, at least that's what me and the Buddhists think

One aspect of Islam that I have questions about- if Allah is their God, why is it such a problem when someone depicts Muhammad? He was a prophet, he's not their, or ANYONE'S God. He and Moses were spoken to by the angel Gabriel and the similarities among all three religions are numerous. However, I don't see more than one group who kills others for observing a different religion.

 

[cel4145]

One aspect of Islam that I have questions about- if Allah is their God, why is it such a problem when someone depicts Muhammad? He was a prophet, he's not their, or ANYONE'S God. He and Moses were spoken to by the angel Gabriel and the similarities among all three religions are numerous. However, I don't see more than one group who kills others for observing a different religion.

Based on a 2010 estimate, there were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. 99.9% of that "group" is not out killing others over religion. Makes about as much sense to me as stereotyping males in the US as killers, which is a probably a similar percentage of the group they belong to. Would it be OK with you if women in the world labeled you as a killer?

 

[Rickster71]

That has nothing to do with the awful position GWB put us in? It's all Obama's fault? Really?

They both had help.
Here's video of Bill Clinton (1998) speaking of attacking Iraq because of "Clear evidence" of Saddam having WMD Program..... There's another one with Al Gore saying the same thing.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[highfigh]

Based on a 2010 estimate, there were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. 99.9% of that "group" is not out killing others over religion. Makes about as much sense to me as stereotyping males in the US as killers, which is a probably a similar percentage of the group they belong to. Would it be OK with you if women in the world labeled you as a killer?

You're right and of the crimes committed by any group, not all are guilty but the fact is, far more Muslims are engaged in terrorism than any others.

If I had killed someone, calling me a killer would be accurate. I never labeled all Muslims as terrorists, nor should anyone else do that.

I have seen more comments about mainstream Muslims decrying the violence, but haven't seen much that tells me they're doing anything else about it.

I have also read that Muhammad pondered the discrimination against women, at the time- Doesn't seem to have changed mush in that regard.

Read the Q'ran to see the writings about killing others- other than the view that "killing one person is like killing all of humanity", I disagree with most of it.

 

[cel4145]

You're right and of the crimes committed by any group, not all are guilty but the fact is, far more Muslims are engaged in terrorism than any others.

If I had killed someone, calling me a killer would be accurate. I never labeled all Muslims as terrorists, nor should anyone else do that.

But so what? What's that fact good for? I know it's used to create more fear of Muslims and of Islam. And I know people of other religions like to cite it in some kind of my religion is superior to your religion sort of way. But with such a very small percentage of the world's Muslim population engaged in terrorism, I don't see why that fact is important. If there are 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world, then that would be 0.007% of the Muslim population. It's not useful at all at talking about Islam or Muslims. Just trivia.