SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (353164)10/2/2007 11:16:04 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1587837
 
**I am not contradicting myself.....SA is Mecca to the Muslims. They see having troops on Mecca soil as an abomination. Not the same with Kuwait.....in fact, many Arabs hate the Kuwaitis because of their uppity ways.

So it was okay to contain Saddam with troops in Kuwait but bad to put troops in SA. Of course, prior to the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam, which you have described as one of our sins against the Arab world, we had to put troops in SA to protect it from Saddam.


I never said that liberating Kuwait was a sin. Stop making sh!t up.

As to whether US troops in SA were an affront to the whole Muslim world, just post where someone other than OBL or other spokesperson complained about the issue.

Here you go:

"The "invasion" of Saudi Arabia by hundreds of thousands of Western soldiers during Operation Desert Storm caused a backlash among Saudi conservatives, and some liberals, who want to preserve Arabian culture and fear domination by the West. Some secular Saudis dislike the Saudi family's domination of the state and the corruption it breeds. More radical Muslims assail the royal family for allying itself with the infidel United States. For decades, the Saudis avoided publicly associating themselves too closely with the United States unless absolutely necessary."

fas.org

---------------------------
There has been poll after poll that clearly shows the degradation of the American image throughout the world. As for the three countries you cite, they elected conservatives; not neocons...with the possible exception of Sarkozy. And mark my words, if Sarkozy continues on his present course, the French will hate him just as much as the Americans hate Bush.

The distinction between conservative and neocon is a liberal myth.


Really. Apparently some righties believe in the myth:

"The term neoconservative, used in that context, simply means ‘new’ conservative and there are distinct views and positions that go along with this ideology that vastly stray from traditional conservative views. Most notably among those views is the adoption of a foreign policy of preemption. Preemptive war and preemptive strikes are distinctly neoconservative, or old far left, positions and stray vastly away from the traditional conservative or Christian view of ‘just war’.
"


stanky.wordpress.com

At any rate, the new govts in Canada, GErmany, and France are much friendlier to the Bush adm. and its policies than their predecessors. Maybe anti-Americanism just isn't that big an issue to foreigners as our leftsists wish.

Bush Continues to Unite the World... Against Him

Message 23212791

--------------------
That isn't factual. Arabs wiped out the centuries old Hebron Jewish community. A number of other Jewish communities were wiped out or driven out. The Jewish population of Jerusalem was almost cut off and put in danger of destruction. A number of villages in Galilee that had held a Jewish peasant population which had never left Palestine were driven out of their homes by Arab violence.

Link please.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org
en.wikipedia.org
eretzyisroel.org
en.wikipedia.org;

These occurred during the war between the Arabs and the Jews. Many Arabs died as well during that war. You really don't know what's happening in that apart of the world, do you?

Hardly. If you are not partisan, you don't have to look far to find things to hate about Bush. I am proud to say I disliked Bush on the campaign trail and voted for Gore. After he got elected, I grew to hate him.

By your own admission you're a parisan opposed to Bush from the beginning. If Bush hadn't gone to war, you could hate him for allowing Saddam to remain in power and cite all the Clinton era evidence of Saddam's WMD programs.


I realized early on what Bush was. That doesn't make me partisan. It makes me very aware.
-----------------------------



To: Brumar89 who wrote (353164)10/3/2007 7:30:08 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1587837
 
These are the people you work so hard to defend? A people who believe using a nuclear weapon is okay so long as it serves their purpose? And then you wonder why Iran wants nukes. Nothing is worth a nuclear holocaust......nothing.

Oct 1, 2007 11:54

Poll: Most Israelis support using nukes

By JPOST.COM STAFF

Approximately 72 percent of Israelis support the use of nuclear weapons in certain circumstances, according to a Canadian survey released recently.

The survey - conducted jointly at the end of July by the Simons Foundation and Angus Reid Strategies - was answered by adults in six countries and showed that 37% of Israelis believed the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a war would be justified, while 35% believed the weapons could be justifiably used during a war.

In addition, the survey found that Israel had the lowest public support for destroying nuclear weapons out of all the countries questioned.

Israel also had the highest percentage in favor of the country using its "power and influence in a way that serves its own interests" - approximately 55% - as opposed to "coordinat[ing] with other countries to do what's best for the world as a whole."

Nearly 72% also agreed that "nuclear weapons place Israel in a unique position, so it is not in our interest to participate in treaties that would reduce or eliminate our purported nuclear arsenal."

About three-quarters of Israelis also said they would feel safer if they knew for certain that Israel had nuclear weapons. Israel has thus far maintained its policy of nuclear ambiguity.

The organizers of the study suggested that Israel accorded greater importance to the nuclear form of defense due to the Iranian threat, Army Radio reported.

The study spanned a sample of 1,000 adults in Britain, France, Italy, Germany and the US along with Israel.

jpost.com