RSS Feed MenuIn his al Arabiya interview, Barack Obama promised “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.”
Apparently, therefore, there was no “partnership” with the Muslim world when Bill Clinton was President. Apparently Obama forgot how close Clinton came in 2000-01 to a deal with the Palestinians and what the Clinton Administration did for Bosnia’s Muslims.
Secretary Clinton must be steaming.
suey // Jan 27, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Chekote. You can bring freedom and democracy to some countries, but not at the barrel of a gun. and not every country. It’s way too complex for that sort of action.Arab states are the most complex because of their tribal nature and the way the Europeans messed up in dividing territory right against traditional borders and geography. See my down thread question to you which I have never had a Neocon answer because they are unable to.
Chekote // Jan 27, 2009 at 4:43 pm
suey. Same ideology. Radical Islam. They carry out attacks all over the world. They have long before Bush ever came on the scene. Look, you have bought into the idea that Bush was the cause of all terrorism. Fine. Let’s see what happens under Obama. BTW Bush never used the term raghead. Believe it was Price Harry who did that. Bush, instead, said that Islam was a religion of peace. So I don’t know where you get your facts.
I never liked the term “War on Terror”. Terror is a tactic. Our eneny is radical islam. And I don’t respect the muslim world. As a woman and a feminist, I have no respect for cultures that systematically oppress women. I have no respect for societies that don’t practice religious freedom, free speech, where people get their head cut off just because they are gay. What is there to respect? But Obama apparently can respect them.
I also denouced the IRA as a terrorist organization. It was not a popular thing to said while living in NY. To me, anyone who targets civilians is a terrorist. And there is no excuse for that, I don’t care if it is the Irish, Italians or whomever.
Chekote // Jan 27, 2009 at 4:48 pm
suey. So certain people cannot handle democracy? Are they different from all the other people who can handle democracy? All that you are saying was said about Japan. Do they have a democracy now? Are they still the warring nation it was for centuries? As far as using the barrel of the gun. You need that to remove the totalitarian regime. Sorry, but I can see no other way to do it. Saddam was not going to “retire” on his own. In Europe Mussolini and Hitlers were removed by force. Only after that was achieved could the work of building a democracy start.
What question are you talking about?
suey // Jan 27, 2009 at 4:53 pm
This question. I asked on this site with the same result. The question is. China decides that they disagree with our regime and wish to make it their business to effect “regime change” they bomb the living daylights out of us and successfully invade and occupy our country. They imprison anyone who fights back in concentration camps and tortures the inmates to get information about any residual insurgents.Now what would you feel about that situation? Would you fight back? How would you feel about the Chinese government? Please don’ tell me it could never happen because we have nuclear weapons.
suey // Jan 27, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Chekote, you cannot impose your value system on the whole world by force, would you force Christianity on the Islamic peoples of the world? Would you make them wear western dress. Why are you so sure that Western democracy is the best for all people in all countries? You are talking about building an empire here. Bush was not responsible for terror I never said that, terror as a tactic is as old as civilisation. I said he was a great recruiting and money raising tool.
Chekote // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:04 pm
suey. I don’t agree with the assertion that concentration camps were set up. I don’t agree about torture. Or are you talking about what Saddam did to the Iraqi people? Before I answer the question, was the our regime democratically elected?
suey // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I asked a simple question based on a simple scenario. How would you feel about that situation?
Chekote // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:10 pm
suey. Did I say Western democracy? Did I talk about imposing a particular religioun? I said freedom, democracy. Democracy seems to have worked in Japan, South Korea. Why can’t it work in the Arab world or anywhere in the world? What is it? Some people can’t genetically handle freedom and democracy?
Chekote // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:13 pm
If the regime was democratically elected, I would be angry. However, if I lived in a oppressive regime and someone helped remove it and given me a chance to live in freedom and have a say in governing my nation, I would be estatic. Kinda like the Italians were happy when Mussolini was removed.
suey // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Um, we live in the West, we have a western democracy we are trying to impose a democracy from the west on an eastern culture. Sounds simple to me. I was asking you a question not making a statement of what you said. I asked WOULD you impose Christianity etc not you said you WOULD.
suey // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:21 pm
We were not exactly greeted as Liberators were we? Beyond the theatre organised by the Army corps of engineers in dragging the statue down.
Chekote // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm
suey. Why did democray work in Japan? Same in South Korea? They are eastern countries. Culturally completely different from Western culture. Actually, Arab culture has come into contact with Western culture more than Japanese culture. The reality is that if Clinton had gone into Iraq the MSM and European media, the same media that mercilessly attacked Bush, would have cheered him saying that he liberated 25 million Iraqis and brought human rights. Not one word was said about Clinton bombing Yugoslavia for three months without UN approval. What exactly did Yugoslavia do to the USA? Heck, they were not even sponsoring terror groups. Yet we bombed them for three months.
Chekote // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:31 pm
suey. Yeah, we staged the events. It was all staged. Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to avenge his daddy. The fact that we were able to topple Saddam in a matter of weeks. The fact that we were able to take Bagdad in a matter of a week. A city of 5 millions, that means that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis were more than happy to get rid of Saddam. If the scenario you outlined in your question applied, we could not have taken Bagdad with the number troops we had on the ground. That’s okay. Obama is there now. And I am sure he will be able to talk dictators into becoming champions of freedom.
Chekote // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:49 pm
suey. Talk to you later.
suey // Jan 27, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Bush 1 weakened the Iraqi army ( and should have finished the job, then allowed the people to take over on their own) and the sanctions weakened the whole country even further. There was rigid control of weapons in private hands. They had little will to fight back after “Shock and awe (TM)” When they managed to get their hands on some weapons after the looting of the army bases they started fighting us back with a vengeance. Why did they do that if we were welcome liberators, that’s no way to treat your new government of freedom and light. We bought the loyalty of the tribal leaders with cash. Billions of dollars shipped on pallets in army transport planes. Why would we need to bribe them to support our ideas? They should be embracing them because they are superior right?
suey // Jan 27, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Why are millions of Iraqui citizens still in voluntary exile in Syria? What about our wonderful democracy don’t they want? Why not come back and join in? For some reason they prefer to live in refugee camps in a dictatorship, Strange! Why are we afraid to leave and let the Iraqi people actually control their own country? If McCain had won we were going to be there for 100 years remember. That shows real confidence in our latest colony. After we leave whenever that is there will be a civil war, no matter how long we stay and how much we spend. The reason is that the state of Iraq is a false construction of 3 tribes that hate each other. Saddam by the force of terror subdued that possibility, when we leave there will be no stopping a realignment into 3 countries. Iran is now because of our actions the main player in the middle east, it has gained great power. When do you want us to invade Iran to have another go at nation building? Iran is a different kettle of fish, you will fight for 100 years there!