Ozi Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 If I was American, I would no doubt vote Republican, but that doesn’t mean I would support all Republican politicians or Republican policies. There are obviously arseholes on both sides. Look at the approach to the muslim problem. I despise muslims and what they stand for, what they are doing to the world, with every bone and muscle in my body. I am still young enough and as a result of maintaining my skill sets, able to be sent back to fight. And I will, willingly, if called to do so. I disagree with government policy and approach to the problem, but I don’t choose who or where I fight. Even more of an issue, we don’t get to choose how we fight or who we defend. Having said that, I don’t go in with blinkers on. I don’t disrespect a very dangerous and capable enemy. I don’t ignore the fact that we, a combination of all the western powerbrokers over the years, created IS. They exist because we fucked up, because we lied, because we interfered, motivated purely by oil. Nothing can justify how they choose to fight for their rights, but only an idiot would deny they have a right. I know this will all fall on deaf ears and that is a big deal. We need new politicians that can look at new ways of thinking, new solutions, because the old ones haven’t worked and never will. We need politicians that will treat the illness, not just ease the symptoms. Destroying IS is fine, but it doesn’t fix the middle east problem, something else will pop up to replace it. In the meantime, the so called moderates in the background are rubbing their hands, because while we focus on the radicals the moderates are taking over in the background. And why do I think it’s a big deal? Because Australia will blindly follow the US into the abyss yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linked Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 We didn't go in based purely on oil. There were a few parts that pulled into our fold. 1. Saddam had chemical WMD's, which he got out of the country before we were able to actually get in and find them. Hence Assad's arsenal. 2. We (the U.S.) put a nut job in power. We put Saddam in power to combat the Iotola of Afghanistan. He started killing massive amounts of his own people, so it was time to correct our mistake. The reason Iraq is in the mess it is, is because our government let the war get political instead of letting our military do what needed to be done. We folded Iraq in 27 days. But instead of showing a fist to get the country in order, we stuck a hand out. Hearts and Minds they called it. I know I was there. Not able to shoot someone because they are not pointing the RPG they are carrying at you. Trust me it was that bad. If they are carrying an RPG they are a combatant but the politicians said, "Hey if they aren't shooting you they are friendly." Bullshit. It wasn't oil. We in the U.S. can actually produce more oil then Iraq. Now on a lighter note, The Chicago all black little league team lost their national title for cheating. And without thought the mighty Jackson pulled the racist card immediately and right on cue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenKraft Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 If I was American, I would no doubt vote Republican, but that doesn’t mean I would support all Republican politicians or Republican policies. There are obviously arseholes on both sides. Look at the approach to the muslim problem. I despise muslims and what they stand for, what they are doing to the world, with every bone and muscle in my body. I am still young enough and as a result of maintaining my skill sets, able to be sent back to fight. And I will, willingly, if called to do so. I disagree with government policy and approach to the problem, but I don’t choose who or where I fight. Even more of an issue, we don’t get to choose how we fight or who we defend. Having said that, I don’t go in with blinkers on. I don’t disrespect a very dangerous and capable enemy. I don’t ignore the fact that we, a combination of all the western powerbrokers over the years, created IS. They exist because we fucked up, because we lied, because we interfered, motivated purely by oil. Nothing can justify how they choose to fight for their rights, but only an idiot would deny they have a right. I know this will all fall on deaf ears and that is a big deal. We need new politicians that can look at new ways of thinking, new solutions, because the old ones haven’t worked and never will. We need politicians that will treat the illness, not just ease the symptoms. Destroying IS is fine, but it doesn’t fix the middle east problem, something else will pop up to replace it. In the meantime, the so called moderates in the background are rubbing their hands, because while we focus on the radicals the moderates are taking over in the background. And why do I think it’s a big deal? Because Australia will blindly follow the US into the abyss yet again. I agree, Ozi. Foolish American white guilt over slavery (as if the U.S. was the only place where slavery ever existed) caused the electorate to become afraid to ask the basic questions one would ask of anyone seeking the highest office in the land. Americans were so afraid of being called racists, they failed to get this strange fellow's birth certificate, his college transcripts, the papers he wrote in college, etc. To ask for these things was considered "racist." If anyone dared to suggest that more information would be helpful, or question why his past had been sealed so tightly, you were presumed to have been a racist. The man was a Muslim. He pretended to be Christian because the U.S. is sort of a Christian country. But what kind of "Christian" did Barry become? Rev. Wright's Anti-American Jump-Around Monkey-Show kind of Christian. That is to say, no Christian at all. I am a Christian. I have studied a lot of history, mostly political history. No country on earth has ever had some stranger show up and suddenly become king, president, prime minister, etc. It was all done using the politics of division while saying it was a move toward unity. Barry will facilitate Iran's developing a nuclear weapon as best he can. Barry is Iran's butt boy. That's why he won't go after Syria because Syria is Barry's Buddy's (Iran's) Best Friend Forever. Muzzie Barry hates Americans and always has. If you read his two books (very well written, I might add), that becomes clear. He also hates Europeans. He also hates Jews. His geopolitical perspective is plain: He thinks that, throughout history, large seafaring and militaristic nations have immorally and cruelly subjugated other peoples, other nations through a device the left likes to call "imperialism." That does, of course, do a great disservice to the reality and the facts of the colonial periods in world history. But Barry is convinced that Europe, America, Australia, New Zealand, only became powerful because they stole what rightfully belonged to the rest of the world. So he (Barry the Great) was put on the planet to fix all that. He wants to punish all the former colonial powers and the best vehicle to do that is Islam. I don't think he thinks of himself as a Muslim. Or a Christian for that matter. He is a Saul Alinsky radical who is, essentially, the anti-Christ. His biggest problem is that, while he appears charming and articulate, he is the product of social advancement (aka affirmative action). He never learned history, economics, accounting, mathematics, or any hard science. All he learned was political gamesmanship and the U.S. has no leader at all. It's okay to have an ignorant president, so long as he is at least smart enough to surround himself with talented people. Barry sounds himself with yes-people and super-rich Democrats who receive big favors and advantages at taxpayers' expense in exchange for their undying love and slobbering affection for Barry. Nobody else is welcome to be is his presence. His goal is to destroy Europe, America, and civilized people worldwide. It's a good thing that he will run out of time before he can do any lasting damage. Someone like Scott Walker, as President, could fix this mess in two years flat. Indeed, the economy will turn around as soon as the polls start to show Walker is likely to become our next President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozi Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 We didn't go in based purely on oil. There were a few parts that pulled into our fold. 1. Saddam had chemical WMD's, which he got out of the country before we were able to actually get in and find them. Hence Assad's arsenal. 2. We (the U.S.) put a nut job in power. We put Saddam in power to combat the Iotola of Afghanistan. He started killing massive amounts of his own people, so it was time to correct our mistake. The reason Iraq is in the mess it is, is because our government let the war get political instead of letting our military do what needed to be done. We folded Iraq in 27 days. But instead of showing a fist to get the country in order, we stuck a hand out. Hearts and Minds they called it. I know I was there. Not able to shoot someone because they are not pointing the RPG they are carrying at you. Trust me it was that bad. If they are carrying an RPG they are a combatant but the politicians said, "Hey if they aren't shooting you they are friendly." Bullshit. It wasn't oil. We in the U.S. can actually produce more oil then Iraq. Now on a lighter note, The Chicago all black little league team lost their national title for cheating. And without thought the mighty Jackson pulled the racist card immediately and right on cue. Don't disagree with what you are saying for the last two or three decades. My comment about oil relates to the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement of World War I. The locals were told that if they helped defeat the Ottoman Empire, they would get autonomy, rule in their own right. However, under the Sykes-Picot agreement, the British and French divided up the middle east between themselves so as to control trade and the flow of oil. The lines drawn up had no relationship to culture, religion or ethnicity. In fact it was done that way intentionally to guarantee infighting amongst the locals, distracting them from the real motivation. IS have recently released a propaganda video condemning the Sykes-Picot Agreement and vowing to destroy the artificial boundaries that were created, the intention being to unite the region to form their caliphate. And you are right, our governments played political games and when it went belly up, sent us in to clean up their mess, right or wrong, that's our job. But as usual we aren't allowed to complete the task. I'd hate to do the math to work out how many soldiers we lost because we had to go back and fight for the same ground over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodworker Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Somebody mentioned something about 'White guilt' over slavery. Well, I don't have any such guilt as I never had a slave. I mean I put in my order, but just never received one. Probably just as well though. That's the last thing I need is to have some blue gummer dangling a knife over my head while I'm sleeping. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodworker Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Dear, East India Trading Company, Please send me one abled bodied negro. Preferably one that isn't dying from dysentery, or aids, or any other such pestilence. Also, hopefully, one that doesn't snore too loudly, as I now live in a rather small place since my divorce. Very cordially yours, Mr. Woodworker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linked Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 my slave is tied up in the basement, but she is white and she asked me to do it. Is this a bad thing? should I feel guilty about the ball gag or the choke chain? j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozi Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Dear Dr Laura Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albacore Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 No No .... your friend is wrong. If you are in the US is must apply to Canadians since they are neighboring - but it applies only if you live in the US .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts