Why Giuliani is Unqualified to be Prez

[Berzerker]

I didn't see the entire debate, just the last few minutes and part of the spin room segment where Rudy sat with Hannity and Colmes. But it appears Congressman Ron Paul had the audacity to tell the truth and Rudy took exception. Paul said 9/11 was a result of US foreign policy in the Middle East and Rudy demanded he retract that statement. Rudy trumpeted the Bu**** line that we were attacked because "they hate our freedom". Okay, isn't that just a softer version of Falwell identifying "immoral" Americans as the reason for 9/11?

The reason this is so important to me is that these people are leading us to a bigger war by denying US foreign policy over the decades has anything to do with the hatred we see over there. If they hate us for existing there is nothing we can do but fight, but if they hate us because we've been over there screwing around pissing people off, then there is something we can do about it - LEAVE! But they have oil... The fact this lying scumbag (Rudy cant be that stupid) would stand there and demand a retraction of the truth and repeat that Bu**** lie disqualifies him from office...

If he gets elected, and this is true for all the other candidates (Hillary) who plan on keeping US troops over there, this "war" on terror will expand because a billion Muslims wont sit on the sidelines forever. When they see the US building more bases and talking trash Iran it becomes more apparent we are the invaders. Maybe the Sunnis dont mind since its just Iran, but Al Qaeda's leaders are Sunnis I believe.

[SlowwHand]

It happens to be that both were right.
Radical Muslims view the USA as the epitome of decadence. Movies. Mini skirts. Eating ice cream. Rock and Roll. Everything they hate.

[Berzerker]

of course they do, so do alot of Americans (we got plenty of Fundies too). But that aint why they've been attacking us, so thats a half truth designed to hide the real truth. A lie by another name... In Osama's declaration of war it was our foreign policy he identified as the reason for war, not because of our culture.

[Berzerker]

the 1 question I want all these candidates to answer is: will you keep troops in the ME once Iraq can "stand" on its own and asks us to leave?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

osama attacks america because he believes he cannot create a pan-arab country as long as the US supports egypt

[SlowwHand]

I'm glad you bring that up, for two reasons, Berz.
People can criticize Bush on Iraq, but he's stuck in a quagmire for the time being, unless he says, "No, screw this and what you want. We're history."

The 2nd point is, and this is just my personal opinion, Iraq has screwed us badly. The people we've helped are little better than the people we helped oust. They drained us on manpower and funds to do anything else, anywhere else, without radical measures.

The 3rd point is doom and gloom that I won't go into at this time.

[Dinner]

Anyone who says people in the mid-east hate us for our freedom is to stupid to hold high office. That's almost Bu****e levels of stupidity. Hell, that is Bu****e levels of stupidity.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It happens to be that both were right.
Radical Muslims view the USA as the epitome of decadence. Movies. Mini skirts. Eating ice cream. Rock and Roll. Everything they hate.

The same is true for Europe, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, New Zealand, half of Africa, Latin America... Yet their primary focus is America or "western" governments which they say are American puppets because they... wait for it... took part in the invasion of Iraq. True, the most radical also included support of Israel on that list but they mostly just blamed America for that instead of say the UK (7/7) or Spain (Madrid train bombing) or Australia (Bali bombing). Bush just ****ed everyone and made everything worse because he was to stupid to ever do anything intelligent.

But that the Republican Party. Voting for them is voting for stupidity.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
osama attacks america because he believes he cannot create a pan-arab country as long as the US supports egypt

Even Osama knows the Arabs themselves won't support an Pan-Arab country. He's just pissed off at the infidels that he believes, rightly may I add, that most Arabs will support killing people of other religions. Arabs are just medieval savages like that. The rest of the world has progressed on but the Arabs, indeed most Muslims, as still primative savages. That's just the role which Muslim societies play. One day they might progress beyond it but they will have to give up their violent religion and join civilization first.

[Berzerker]

osama attacks america because he believes he cannot create a pan-arab country as long as the US supports egypt

The attacks began after we expelled Saddam from Kuwait and didn't leave. But what do I care? Egypt is run by a dictator now. Our support for corrupt regimes was 2nd on his list, it was the troops in Saudi Arabia that became the catalyst. We liked it when the Russians were getting hit in Afghanistan, but then the Russians got smart - they left. And we got dumb, we went in... Guess what? The people attacking the Russians started attacking us for the very same reason.

The same is true for Europe, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, New Zealand, half of Africa, Latin America... Yet their primary focus is America or "western" governments which they say are American puppets because they... wait for it... took part in the invasion of Iraq.

Yeah, Brazil aint getting attacked and its a pretty "liberal" society regarding sexuality. But I'll agree with that rant about Islam, what a ******* lame religion. It appears to be based on banning temptation They cover women so men wont feel lust... Hey, y'all wanna impress me? Gouge out your offending eyes and leave the women alone.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The same is true for Europe, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, New Zealand, half of Africa, Latin America... Yet their primary focus is America or "western" governments which they say are American puppets because they... wait for it... took part in the invasion of Iraq. True, the most radical also included support of Israel on that list but they mostly just blamed America for that instead of say the UK (7/7) or Spain (Madrid train bombing) or Australia (Bali bombing). Bush just ****ed everyone and made everything worse because he was to stupid to ever do anything intelligent.

But that the Republican Party. Voting for them is voting for stupidity.

Iraq isn't the only trigger point.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Even Osama knows the Arabs themselves won't support an Pan-Arab country. He's just pissed off at the infidels that he believes, rightly may I add, that most Arabs will support killing people of other religions. Arabs are just medieval savages like that. The rest of the world has progressed on but the Arabs, indeed most Muslims, as still primative savages. That's just the role which Muslim societies play. One day they might progress beyond it but they will have to give up their violent religion and join civilization first.

Do you really believe this tripe you've posted?

[DinoDoc]

Have you just started reading his posts, nye?

[Patroklos]

the 1 question I want all these candidates to answer is: will you keep troops in the ME once Iraq can "stand" on its own and asks us to leave?

Why would we leave the entire ME because Iraq is done?

[Pekka]

I think what Sloww said with the "they hate us" point was not to say they hate "our freedom" per se, but that they see, and I point out Sloww also said Radical Muslims, they see the corruption in Western cultures. Thus he mention mini skirts etc.

I mean this is a big problem with some of the radical muslims vs. the west. The corruption of our cultures, our way of life etc. So we epitomize the separation from God, Allah etc. to them. We are the prime examples of it. You see, some of the radical element has long time ago accepted the killings of fellow muslims, if they shouldn't agree with the notion, that you should do certain things like devote your life to Allah, or follow these rules, so that always projects back to us. We are the perfect picture of what is wrong in this world to them, in our way of life.

So this isn't just about military action and attempts to gain some sort of control in certain areas.

So, what Ron Paul said, I mean it's first of all true as well. We can always measure which one is the bigger problem, military domination, invasion and occupation and whatnot versus these other more spiritual and personal (dare I say racist? No I don't) views of how we are seen in the eyes of many radicals.

Because it was the radicals that attacked the west in different locations, 911, Madrid, London, Bali etc. It's mostly the common people who are getting raped in the butt by the foregin militaries and the coalition as well as the local radicals. The ones caught in between, they haven't attacked anyone that is worthy of mentioning.

Ok, these people might have the problem of military domination. However, they didn't attack anyone. The radicals did. And they have a problem with both, our cultures as well as the military and the meddlings in their countries.

So, they were both right. But Giuliani was like... right by accident. I think his rhetorics were poor and shows the level of his debating skills and also that he goes easily back to these rhetorics "what about 911" type of tactics. While it works, it's just, I don't think it's content enough to run a country, or show casing that the person is smart enough to do it.

To my eyes it seemed like a really good move by Ron Paul to not stick around that plead for populism, but rather continue with his point as if nothing happened. That shows he has content and doesn't have to pick up flame wars, so that means he is the better debator of the two, agree with his views or not.

Of course on a global scheme military meddlings are always going to be a bigger problem as far as reactions and blowbacks goes, I mean that's awlays going to have after effects we can't calculate. I think his point is, that instead of building these bases all over the world, we'd be safer ot keep the ones we have here working and build more of them if possible. That is, to be more isolationist and let the world go as it pleases, we'll see what happens. Of course this isn't to say if there was another Hitler, that we¨'ll just watch. It's more like, right now, there are unnecessary engagements going on, and it just costs a lot of money and there are no direct benefits to be seen.

In that regard, I agree with him.