Axis of idiots
- Thread starter snaptafar
- Start date
That article reeks of propoganda...lol.
They forgot to add Dubyah to the list because he had Sadr in his hands and let him walk away. Now he is one of the big problem children and has pull in parts of the Iraqi government.
Even Ronnie dealt with Sadam Hussien. Wasnt that Rummy shaking hands with him?
Didnt Ronnie have some dealings with Iran as well ?
Lets go back to Yalta in WW2......
Seems both sides of the aisle is jam packed with idiots....
Now we have a capitol and white house packed to the brim with them......
They forgot to add Dubyah to the list because he had Sadr in his hands and let him walk away. Now he is one of the big problem children and has pull in parts of the Iraqi government.
Even Ronnie dealt with Sadam Hussien. Wasnt that Rummy shaking hands with him?
Didnt Ronnie have some dealings with Iran as well ?
Lets go back to Yalta in WW2......
Seems both sides of the aisle is jam packed with idiots....
Now we have a capitol and white house packed to the brim with them......
let's not forget cheney claiming we'll be greeted as liberators and that we're in the "last throes" of the insurgency...how many years ago?
oh and how idiotic was it to let the man responsible for 9/11 get away so that a few hundred billion could be spent on a war that only the most hard-headed in the bunch still want? how idiotic was it to refer to the internet as a "series of tubes" and put a computer illiterate fool in charge of a committee deciding the future of communications? how idiotic was it to let that fool scream and holler about his oil buddies being sworn in so they could lie to congress with impunity? how idiotic was it to allow a pedophile to run a committee regarding child exploitation?
And the media, oh lord...how idiotic is it for Ann Coulter to encourage racism and bigotry among her fellow "christians"? How idiotic is it for O'Rielly to encourage nationalism and xenophobia among his fellow "traditionalists"?
There are an equal number of idiots on the right as the left. They're just a different flavor of idiots.
oh and how idiotic was it to let the man responsible for 9/11 get away so that a few hundred billion could be spent on a war that only the most hard-headed in the bunch still want? how idiotic was it to refer to the internet as a "series of tubes" and put a computer illiterate fool in charge of a committee deciding the future of communications? how idiotic was it to let that fool scream and holler about his oil buddies being sworn in so they could lie to congress with impunity? how idiotic was it to allow a pedophile to run a committee regarding child exploitation?
And the media, oh lord...how idiotic is it for Ann Coulter to encourage racism and bigotry among her fellow "christians"? How idiotic is it for O'Rielly to encourage nationalism and xenophobia among his fellow "traditionalists"?
There are an equal number of idiots on the right as the left. They're just a different flavor of idiots.
WSM MAGNUM
New member
I like it. Gets right to the point, and it`s just what I would say about them."Islamic Nazis" -- that's such threadbare neocon propaganda term. Yeah, the Muslims hate us because we can own new AK-47s and they can't, right?
The truth is that both major parties are responsible for the greatly- and deliberately-exaggerated terrorist threat. Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible. Why? I wrote about it in an earlier post:
Although terrorism is a total joke compared to the other dangers Americans face -- cancer, heart disease, diabetes, car accidents, getting stuck by lightning, etc. -- there's still something that can be done to nearly eliminate the risk. The problem is that "macho" types won't like it. What's the solution? Stop making enemies around the world! Seal the borders, too.
The truth is that both major parties are responsible for the greatly- and deliberately-exaggerated terrorist threat. Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible. Why? I wrote about it in an earlier post:
Although terrorism is a total joke compared to the other dangers Americans face -- cancer, heart disease, diabetes, car accidents, getting stuck by lightning, etc. -- there's still something that can be done to nearly eliminate the risk. The problem is that "macho" types won't like it. What's the solution? Stop making enemies around the world! Seal the borders, too.
WeedWacker
New member
Go Nader
-Me
Ihave to agree
With Raccol and Steelcore on this. Our leaders have obviously made agendas with other countries that we don't know about, and most people don't want to know about. When people don't want to know the truth, that affects their lives, futures, children, economy and liberty it's scary. I don't think the politicians are idiots, I think they are doing exactly what they are told to do by the globalists, or else. One of these days they will do some thing that will wake everybody up, but it might be too late then.
With Raccol and Steelcore on this. Our leaders have obviously made agendas with other countries that we don't know about, and most people don't want to know about. When people don't want to know the truth, that affects their lives, futures, children, economy and liberty it's scary. I don't think the politicians are idiots, I think they are doing exactly what they are told to do by the globalists, or else. One of these days they will do some thing that will wake everybody up, but it might be too late then.
FAL-schutter
New member
With all due respect to the sarn't-major, he provides a perfect illustration of why the armed forces of a democracy need to be under civilian control, because his accusations in the first two paragraphs alone are enough to make anyone who read a newspaper during the time period in question weep.
Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage.
If al-Qaeda and the Taliban are the epitomy of the "Islamic Nazi movement," the Islamic Republic of Iran has little do with it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are hardline Wahhabist Sunni muslims, whereas Iranians are Shi'ite. Wahhabists hate Shi'ites even more than they hate us.
And what was so wonderful about the Shah, anyway? Apart from his being on "our" side in the Cold War, as opposed to Khomeini, who was on nobody's side but his own (even the Soviets were afraid of Khomeini, which is why they sold Saddam lots of small arms, tanks, artillery and combat aircraft on credit to fight Iran). As for failing to "confront the terrorists," wasn't there a rescue attempt involving Delta Force and brace of CH-53s? What else was Carter supposed to do? Invade? Remember that the Soviet Union bordered on Iran at the time, and a large-scale American invasion of Iran might have prompted them to intervene, turning Iran into the first battlefield of WW III.
Bill Clinton, you played “ring around the Lewinsky” while the terrorists were at war with us.
That's odd. I distinctly remember it was a Republican-dominated Congress that insisted on playing "ring around the Lewinsky" even as al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in East Africa and Saddam kicked out the UNSCOM weapons inspectors.
You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, [...]
Again, that's odd, because I'm pretty certain it was Bush the Elder who sent US troops into Somalia. Sure, the situation escalated under Clinton, but that was the result of Aidid's goons hindering the humanitarian relief effort. If there had been no escalation, and no Battle of Mogadishu, Pendry would be complaining that Clinton "lacked the spine to confront the terrorists." Damned if you do...
[...] and then you ran from it.
I think Congress had more than a little to with that; let's face it, during the 90s and up to 9/11, there wasn't a member of Congress who wasn't "body bag-shy," Republicans and Democrats alike.
It's all pretty much downhill from there.
That said, Redworm, I know it's fashionable to pretend that the "welcomed as liberators" prediction was utterly wrong, but fact is, it was spot on; Iraqis did welcome the coalition troops as liberators. Unfortunately, a few weeks later, the honeymoon was over, but that's not to say it never took place.
Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage.
If al-Qaeda and the Taliban are the epitomy of the "Islamic Nazi movement," the Islamic Republic of Iran has little do with it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are hardline Wahhabist Sunni muslims, whereas Iranians are Shi'ite. Wahhabists hate Shi'ites even more than they hate us.
And what was so wonderful about the Shah, anyway? Apart from his being on "our" side in the Cold War, as opposed to Khomeini, who was on nobody's side but his own (even the Soviets were afraid of Khomeini, which is why they sold Saddam lots of small arms, tanks, artillery and combat aircraft on credit to fight Iran). As for failing to "confront the terrorists," wasn't there a rescue attempt involving Delta Force and brace of CH-53s? What else was Carter supposed to do? Invade? Remember that the Soviet Union bordered on Iran at the time, and a large-scale American invasion of Iran might have prompted them to intervene, turning Iran into the first battlefield of WW III.
Bill Clinton, you played “ring around the Lewinsky” while the terrorists were at war with us.
That's odd. I distinctly remember it was a Republican-dominated Congress that insisted on playing "ring around the Lewinsky" even as al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in East Africa and Saddam kicked out the UNSCOM weapons inspectors.
You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, [...]
Again, that's odd, because I'm pretty certain it was Bush the Elder who sent US troops into Somalia. Sure, the situation escalated under Clinton, but that was the result of Aidid's goons hindering the humanitarian relief effort. If there had been no escalation, and no Battle of Mogadishu, Pendry would be complaining that Clinton "lacked the spine to confront the terrorists." Damned if you do...
[...] and then you ran from it.
I think Congress had more than a little to with that; let's face it, during the 90s and up to 9/11, there wasn't a member of Congress who wasn't "body bag-shy," Republicans and Democrats alike.
It's all pretty much downhill from there.
That said, Redworm, I know it's fashionable to pretend that the "welcomed as liberators" prediction was utterly wrong, but fact is, it was spot on; Iraqis did welcome the coalition troops as liberators. Unfortunately, a few weeks later, the honeymoon was over, but that's not to say it never took place.
It doesn't matter if they hate us more or not. When Westerners or Israel get involved in the mix, many of those issues are put aside to fight the greater "problem." "Me against my brother; my brother and I against my uncle; my brother, my uncle and I against the world" isn't just a saying over there; it's a way of life.
WeedWacker
New member
According to the muslim religion all religions can be allowed to exist. Only if they pay a tax. Otherwise they are killed. If they don't wnt to die they can just convert to to Islam. And all other peoples must pay homage to the muslims since they need to rule the world to ensure that all people can follow Allah. They oppress women and anyone who won't look like they are of middle eastern descent and believe they are the true descendents of abraham and are entitled to the promised land
Hmm I think I know the real reason they hate the US and it is only partly because of our support of the Isrelis. Some of the other nations(COUGHfranceCOUGH) are succumbing to their demands and in a way are paying a "tax" to not be attacked and killed. Yet the US continues to refuse to give them anything.
Hmm I think I know the real reason they hate the US and it is only partly because of our support of the Isrelis. Some of the other nations(COUGHfranceCOUGH) are succumbing to their demands and in a way are paying a "tax" to not be attacked and killed. Yet the US continues to refuse to give them anything.
Slugthrower
New member
The Ottoman Empire was the only Islamic power challenging the rising power of Western Europe between the 1400s and late 1800s. With Istanbul, formerly known as Constantinople, as its capital. The Ottoman Empire was the Islamic successor of the Roman and Byzantine empires. The end of World War I saw to the end of that empire.
This Empire was the leading Islamic state in geo/political terms, in addition to ideological and cultural perspectives. The redrawing of borders in the former Ottoman Empire changed this. Britain, France and the USA saw fit to divide up the territories. The Ottoman Empire was the last substantial power that could potentially speak for Muslim interests.
This partitioning of the Ottoman Empire altered the balance of power in the middle east, leading to declining legitimacy and increasing repression. The first resistance to the leading Western powers came from the Turkish national movement, and after World War II, the middle east began to develop resistances to western influences in many forms.
The Balfour Declaration helped start a Zionist movement, which supported the creation of a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, which is the site of the old Kingdom of Israel. The French and British used the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the region.
This "problem" has been hundreds of years in the making. Europe and the US, made these enemies long ago. The Middle East seeks to return to prominence on the world stage. Many of the economic policies that we have placed upon that region are coming back and biting our collective rear ends. The simple fact is that we are in a fight for the very existence of our way of life. Europe is currently compromising with these people. Eventually Europe will be under Islamic control. Westerners only see as far as the last or next administration. The Arabs have a plan that is measured by generations.
What will America do when the Middle East starts to sell oil only to China and Russia? Arab dependence on American dollars will end. We will be weakened and ripe for attack, so long as we are dependant on sources of fuel outside of our borders. Socio-political and economic sanctions, on the part of the west, only fuel the desire to be free of our influence. The League of Nations helped to set this stage. The UN is furnishing the props for a grand show...
We are not learning from our history. WWIII will be the smack in our collective faces that might wake us up, or break our necks and kill us.
Freiheit ist in unseren Händen...
This Empire was the leading Islamic state in geo/political terms, in addition to ideological and cultural perspectives. The redrawing of borders in the former Ottoman Empire changed this. Britain, France and the USA saw fit to divide up the territories. The Ottoman Empire was the last substantial power that could potentially speak for Muslim interests.
This partitioning of the Ottoman Empire altered the balance of power in the middle east, leading to declining legitimacy and increasing repression. The first resistance to the leading Western powers came from the Turkish national movement, and after World War II, the middle east began to develop resistances to western influences in many forms.
The Balfour Declaration helped start a Zionist movement, which supported the creation of a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, which is the site of the old Kingdom of Israel. The French and British used the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the region.
This "problem" has been hundreds of years in the making. Europe and the US, made these enemies long ago. The Middle East seeks to return to prominence on the world stage. Many of the economic policies that we have placed upon that region are coming back and biting our collective rear ends. The simple fact is that we are in a fight for the very existence of our way of life. Europe is currently compromising with these people. Eventually Europe will be under Islamic control. Westerners only see as far as the last or next administration. The Arabs have a plan that is measured by generations.
What will America do when the Middle East starts to sell oil only to China and Russia? Arab dependence on American dollars will end. We will be weakened and ripe for attack, so long as we are dependant on sources of fuel outside of our borders. Socio-political and economic sanctions, on the part of the west, only fuel the desire to be free of our influence. The League of Nations helped to set this stage. The UN is furnishing the props for a grand show...
We are not learning from our history. WWIII will be the smack in our collective faces that might wake us up, or break our necks and kill us.
Freiheit ist in unseren Händen...
I rather agree with the article that opened this thread, this is not because I support the conservative agenda in its entire self but because I was raised in the 30s and 40s when it was proper to love our Country, support our Govt.
and to do our part in speech, deeds, and action to maintain it as the best Govt. ever devised. God, Mom, Dad and apple pie.
I feel that liberalism, ultra liberalism, and yes ultra conservatism are a great deterrant to the maintaining and continuation of the Great US and our way of life. There is so much hatred now between portions of the two political parties and their adherents that sooner or later a Civil Disturbance of a great magnitude may erupt, and which will destroy everything good that we have or have had.
and to do our part in speech, deeds, and action to maintain it as the best Govt. ever devised. God, Mom, Dad and apple pie.
I feel that liberalism, ultra liberalism, and yes ultra conservatism are a great deterrant to the maintaining and continuation of the Great US and our way of life. There is so much hatred now between portions of the two political parties and their adherents that sooner or later a Civil Disturbance of a great magnitude may erupt, and which will destroy everything good that we have or have had.
Slugthrower
New member
This man seems to have a grasp on what we face.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm
Why are we going to be electing more idiots when we have an option?
Willfull ignorance seems to be the likely candidate.
Donkeys and elephants are meant to be rode. Why are they riding us?
When we elect leaders rather than representatives, we will be lead.
America loves to chase carrots. I begin to wonder... Just who are the Idiots?
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm
Why are we going to be electing more idiots when we have an option?
Willfull ignorance seems to be the likely candidate.
Donkeys and elephants are meant to be rode. Why are they riding us?
When we elect leaders rather than representatives, we will be lead.
America loves to chase carrots. I begin to wonder... Just who are the Idiots?
Slugt.
It doesn't matter when the middle east wishes to sell oil only to Russia and China. We may decide to only sell Wheat and Corn on Tuesday. Wanna talk about creating a worldwide havoc on the food market? We may not control everything in the world, but we control food, and next to water, it seems like food shortages and disruptions in a staple such as food would create the same havoc with those who wish to control us with oil. Economic warfare is just as valid as military warfare and thus far, we are the world's economic powerhouse.
China may can do without our food, but the political regimes in numerous countries survive because they keep their populations fed just enough to keep them from getting too restless.
We are sufficiently safe from invasions, from embargoes (happened already once and we survived) and other inconveniences. Slap an embargo on us on oil, we build more nuclear plants. We use more of the resources we aready are blessed with.
I am not worried about Arab oil embargoes. They did it once and it failed. They ended up hurting more than we did.
I am a proponent of doing the right thing based on principle and leaving the rest of the world alone. If that doesn't work, I am a big proponent of dropping bigger and better bombs on people until they do leave us alone. I'm kinda split that way!
It doesn't matter when the middle east wishes to sell oil only to Russia and China. We may decide to only sell Wheat and Corn on Tuesday. Wanna talk about creating a worldwide havoc on the food market? We may not control everything in the world, but we control food, and next to water, it seems like food shortages and disruptions in a staple such as food would create the same havoc with those who wish to control us with oil. Economic warfare is just as valid as military warfare and thus far, we are the world's economic powerhouse.
China may can do without our food, but the political regimes in numerous countries survive because they keep their populations fed just enough to keep them from getting too restless.
We are sufficiently safe from invasions, from embargoes (happened already once and we survived) and other inconveniences. Slap an embargo on us on oil, we build more nuclear plants. We use more of the resources we aready are blessed with.
I am not worried about Arab oil embargoes. They did it once and it failed. They ended up hurting more than we did.
I am a proponent of doing the right thing based on principle and leaving the rest of the world alone. If that doesn't work, I am a big proponent of dropping bigger and better bombs on people until they do leave us alone. I'm kinda split that way!