Jebus

I would still criticize his assessment if there was no violence (I should of mentioned this in my earlier post). I originally thought it was the response to the attack. He has a right to express himself but he was not just representing himself when he issued that statement-without authority from the State Department. There was also a move to remove certain words ( I think swear words) from Saving Private Ryan which was being aired on November 11th, a few years ago. I object to that and the other examples you described. Have you seen the film, A Man for All Seasons?

First of all, that video was not made to incite violence. Second, most of those thugs probably did not see the video and third, there is no right to be free from criticism.

Obama rightly criticized the attacks, and his decision to send the Marines is justified. "To the shores of Tripoli!" I was replying to his statement that a condemnation requires finess, not necessarily relating to the events that happend. Now knowing the statement was issued before hand, but still reiterated after the attack on the embassy. My criticism still stands on that individual who issued it, Schwartz.

From the link you gave me, it mentioned the individual responsible for publishing the statement (without authorization). Though the statement was issued beforehand, that individual defended it on twitter, after the compound was breached. Though he condemned the breaches as well. And condemnation of attacks do not require, "finess." You obviously don't have to sy bring it on, a simple, "we condemn the attacks on our citizens and property," would be enough. Also have any of you seen the video? It is not that bad (there are worse) and does not incite violence.

They are condemning the video but not the attackers. I thought it was pretty obvious...

The US embassy made a very inept statement regarding the attack on the compound on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. They have removed the statement from their website. I took a screenshot hours before.

Very often US soldiers would step in and help detainees because Iraqis wanted to beat the living crap out of them.

Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Israel bombed it. Lets hope they stop the Ayatollah's as well.

No. I have views from both sides.

Hmm, thats weird. Just search, "private interest groups" (with the quotation marks) with google. It's the first link.

I googled and I found this, http://texaspolitics...edu/5_2_2.html It doesn't seem so bad. Argumentum ad verecundiam. The fact that your teacher has his masters means absolutely nothing.

Those walls u listed as examples failed. There was a point in history where the best defence became a strong offense. I want Afghanistan to succeed but we are not doing what is necessary, if you think your answers will solve it, then go right ahead and tell the generals your idea. Also the Taliban promised security, and they brought it when Afghanistan was broken up into territories controlled by warlords. In my opinion, they were too harsh, especially on the women and their biggest mistake was harbouring Al queda.

Your mile long fortress is ridiculous. Ahmad Shah Massoud told us this would soon be our problem, unfortunately we (the west) didn't listen and he is dead now. He said that if we can get Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to stop funding and help us in this fight, it would have been over in a year. Afghanistan is going to take a very long time, it lacks the infrastructure needed to succeed on their own. Most afghans do not want the Taliban to return, but the Taliban atleast make due with their promises. We have not. Progress has been made, but it has not been enough. There was a point in 2011 when huge progress was being made, but with the pullout of troops, this progress is decreasing. Green on blue attacks are becoming more and more common. The ROE that is in place is not sufficient for our troops. The ANA and ANP are getting much better and are taking the lead on several operations. This is a good sign. I hope the next elections will bring in an actual leader capable of uniting afghans and ending the corruption. This war we are fighting is not against a religion, but a civilization. An old and backwards civilization. Our is not perfect, but it is the best we have, and worth fighting for.

Athena, are you pro-life, or just pro-human life? There is also similarities between animals that we put down and insects we exterminate and (according to your statements) the holocaust. Life began over 3500 million years ago, not in the womb.

Never mind then. They all seem the same to me. A few of his issues do appeal to me though. On Energy, "Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research." On Healthcare "Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines," and I agree with his foreign policy. Obama isn't that much different that Romney though...

Well, Romney is a mormon. If he gets elected, would that be the first time a president is neither catholic nor christian (excluding Jefferson)? Yes, it's Jon Hunstman. I don't know why I said Paul... lol. Too bad he lost though.

I was rooting for Paul Hunstman.

The comparisons made between abortion/hitler and Bush/hitler are absurd, the differences are night and day.

Perhaps I made the assertion because of this, http://markhumphrys.com/left.islamic.html. You obviously cared since you cared so much to reply to it. I know the right installed Saddam, you said that already... But they also removed him from power.

Wait, I may have misunderstood your earlier post; where you referring to the gulf war, which was UN-Authorized as, not legal? I said the Gulf war was legal according to an organization that is filled with dictators but not the second war in 2003. Decisions are not right or wrong based on who makes them, but on the reasons for them. BTW, I'm openly critical of the right as well.

I never said it was, "Legal," but justified. Obviously not all the protestors supported Saddam, but some did and very openly... Jesus tap dancing christ.

The references on that wiki page lead to nothing.... People protested the Gulf war, which was, "legal." Since Iraq was violating the resolutions imposed by the UN for over a decade, does that not justify action? As people marched in London, New York and Montreal, Iraqis were praying for someone to come and save them. Their prayers were answered. Not by the UN which had failed them for over a decade but the very people they marched against, Bush and Blair. A friend of mine (Kurdish) told me that Bush was a prophet sent by god to help liberate them and the soldiers, angels. http://www.nationalr...qis/amir-taheri Also Ramsey Clark protested the Intervention in Iraq and openly supported Saddam Hussein. The group ANSWER, protested the Iraq war and is well known for its support of dictators.

I never said they supported Saddam. I said they were demanding he stay in power. If you are going to protest against the removal of a dictator, that pretty well implies that he should stay in power, since no other force is going to remove him from power. Well they didn't mention any credible ideas anyway... A lot of the protests were organized by socialist (left wing) organizations. Some on the right were protesting against as well but it definitely was not their slogan. It was Obamas though - to remove troops from Iraq. George Galloway however actually saluted Saddam Hussein.

Several thousand protestors. They tried diplomacy for over 10 years, in those 10 years Saddam built a palace in every province for himself while parading dead children as though the cause were from the sanctions. We later learned doctors were forced to keep dead children frozen.

+1^^ There are plenty of successful African Americans on the right. Frederick Douglas is my favourite. The fact that the Republican party was responsible for the abolition of slavery might also have something to do with it. I'm not sure how you would discuss about such persons though, it just seems weird to devote a thread on it.