I would never use the fake word "Islamophobe", but I'd agree that it's possible that Bush may be a Christian fanatic. That's a far cry from making Christian evangelism a pillar of U.S. foreign policy.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

I would never use the fake word "Islamophobe", but I'd agree that it's possible that Bush may be a Christian fanatic. That's a far cry from making Christian evangelism a pillar of U.S. foreign policy.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

If you look at what he did in Iraq and Afghanistan you could easily make the argument that he viewed each as a sort of Christian missionary assignment. Schools politics economics etc. He thought that he was bringing civilization to them. Remember when spoke of bringing democracy to them by providing candy. What about winning the hearts and minds and Western styled democracy?

If you look at N.Korea the issue is similar. U.S. meddling in a distant part of the world. I guess I can be a bit isolationist but I just think that countries have a right to establish whatever Govt that they choose and it's up to the citizens of said country to resist or revolt.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Not remotely similar to Bin Laden.

Bush on Islam:



Compare that to Bin Laden speaking about other religions.

This is not to say that Bush did not wildly mismanage it, or that he should not have invaded Iraq, but wouldn't a democracy be better for all involved- rather than a theocratic state in a constant state of civil war over different interpretations of the Koran?

Bush might not have understood how much these groups hated each other, but he did not tell them fight out their differences. That's were most of the casualties in Iraq have come from.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Not remotely similar to Bin Laden.

Bush on Islam:



Compare that to Bin Laden speaking about other religions.

This is not to say that Bush did not wildly mismanage it, or that he should not have invaded Iraq, but wouldn't a democracy be better for all involved- rather than a theocratic state in a constant state of civil war over different interpretations of the Koran?

Bush might not have understood how much these groups hated each other, but he did not tell them fight out their differences. That's were most of the casualties in Iraq have come from.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Here is the thing with Iraq. It wasn't theocratic. Hussein was a dictator but Iraq wasn't nowhere near being subjected to Shariah law. For all his faults Hussein wasn't a fundamentalist.

As far Bin Laden there was a phrase in there where he showed respects to all the prophets. I'm not defending the guy but I think we need to examine US role as interventionist and arbiter of international conflict.

LTG keeps using the term "Palestinian" in an incorrect way. The idea of "Palestinians" as a nation wasn't created until the 60s as a cudgel with which to hammer Jews. In 1945 all the Jews and Arabs who lived within the territory of the British Mandate were "Palestinians".

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Palestinian Arabs were proudly Syrians.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Did US actions make Iraq a better place? What about Vietnam? How about Iran? It's kind of mixed bag with that. The US has also aligned themselves with many of the same types of people that we criticize. Northern Alliance is but one of the more recent examples of this. In today's world I think it difficult to be completely isolated but I do think that we can extricate ourselves from the inner workings of foreign Govts if we choose. We have left human rights violators China and Saudi Arabia alone for the most part. It's doable.

The druze you guys. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the druze?

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

The Druze and the Samaritans don't bother anyone.

We've really had the test of both the activist and passive Middle East policies in our lifetimes. Iraq is a classic case of America intervening even where it wasn't needed and being a total disaster. Then we have Syria where we've largely stayed on the sidelines with only modest help to proxies, and it has been a total disaster.

We also had a "righteous" intervention in Afghanistan which has only been a partial disaster.

There are problems we cannot fix despite our war machine. I'd prefer the Syrian path so the guns aren't trained on our marines and the costs aren't paid by our taxpayers. At best, Syria could have a government that looks like Lebanon's where the spoils of government are split among the varying sects by law. But Syria has mostly Sunni's while being ruled by Shia's. Lebanon is more equaled divided by the three main religions.

That's a key difference though that people disingenuously omit when critiquing Obama's foreign policy. Syria is a disaster but Obama didn't put the burden of fixing or preempting that mess on the U.S taxpayer. On one hand you have guys saying we shouldn't be the world's policeman, but when Obama did just that in Syria, the same guys are criticizing him for holding off. Then they turn around and vote for Trump because he doesn't want to be the world's policeman.

1: No, the Palestinians in fact were not a majority in the land granted by partition. The lands granted in partition were lands that were significantly a majority Jewish. I already explained why partition was the only option and 1 state for 2 peoples would not work. It could've worked pre-1920, but then the Arabs living there embraced Haj Amin Al-Hussseini and started to attack the Jews. FYI, he would've been the leader of the Arab state so are you rally suggesting in 1948 the Jews should've been put under the control of a radical leader who embraced and met with Hitler hoping he could aid Hilter's final solution had the British not stopped the Germans cold at El-Alamein? That is exactly what you're proposing when you are saying the Jews should've been living in an Arab state in 1948.

Without the Mufti and the violence he started in the 20s, you could argue for 1 state, but he set events into motion that made this impossible and then ran off to ally himself with Hitler as he saw they shared a common enemy in the Jewish people.

2: Zionism as the simple idea that the Jewish people should have a home as it was clear they were not safe anywhere else. Herzl was an atheist who had no racial views. He was a journalist who believed himself to be assimilated until he saw what happened to Dreyfus and realized that if Jews were not safe (living as an assimilated people) in enlightened France, then they were not safe anywhere. I'd say his fears became prophetic 50 years later when 2/3rds of European Jewry was wiped out. It was never based upon an idea the Jews were superior or on the destruction of the Palestinians. In fact, there really was no separate ethnicity known as the Palestinian people then. The Palestinian people as a separate ethnicity was born out in the 60s as before that they were Syrians, Egyptians, etc.

3: The majority of livable land (non-arid) was granted to the Palestinians. Over 60% of the land partitioned for Israel was the Negev, which was empty of all human development. The majority of the fertile land which was considered to be livable was granted to the Arabs.

That's a key difference though that people disingenuously omit when critiquing Obama's foreign policy. Syria is a disaster but Obama didn't put the burden of fixing or preempting that mess on the U.S taxpayer. On one hand you have guys saying we shouldn't be the world's policeman, but when Obama did just that in Syria, the same guys are criticizing him for holding off. Then they turn around and vote for Trump because he doesn't want to be the world's policeman.

Your options of who to support are bad and worse.

is someone going to refute any of this? Or support it? I need a winner.

Trae Young will be a bust. Book It!

I'm not criticizing Bush or Obama or Trump on foreign policy because I just really don't know enough, but one thing I'm almost certain about is that Iranian hegemony in the Middle East isn't good for anyone.

I'm not criticizing Bush or Obama or Trump on foreign policy because I just really don't know enough, but one thing I'm almost certain about is that Iranian hegemony in the Middle East isn't good for anyone.

Les Grobstein's huge hog is proof that God has a sense of humor, isn't it?

is someone going to refute any of this? Or support it? I need a winner.

I smell a bit....

This is a really weird thread.

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.