'Americans are not your enemy,' Obama tells Muslims

[War Paint]

Wow. Obama's first televised interview as president and he's on a muslim network making us look weak. Pathetic. But I'm not surprised. I knew he would be like this. I miss Bush already.

[skinsince72]

Gee. I wonder why that was.

Because some remember how Hitler-like dictators operate?

[Larry]

Do you think the war was unnecessary? I'm not asking about it being unnecessary for Americans. Just unnecessary in general.

Your two questions are identical.

If it's not necessary for Americans, then it's not necessary.

It may be desirable. But that's another matter.

[Dan T.]

Wow. Obama's first televised interview as president and he's on a muslim network making us look weak. Pathetic. But I'm not surprised. I knew he would be like this. I miss Bush already.

That's really what you got from that interview? Really? That is sad. Pathetic really. :doh:

[Predicto]

Not quite. His post is clear as day about his view of Bush AND the war. Why even say "unnecessary"? Could he just not have said "Will you approve of Obama until he starts a war"?

Because the big difference with the Iraq war was that it was unnecessary.

I supported the President and the troops when we went into Afganistan. The Taliban harbored and sponsored AQ, and fully earned the beatdown that they got from us.

When the President rushed us into Iraq, it was a completely different story. for me and for many many patriotic Americans. I still support the troops, but not the decision to start that war.

[Predicto]

Wow. Obama's first televised interview as president and he's on a muslim network making us look weak. Pathetic. But I'm not surprised. I knew he would be like this. I miss Bush already.

Yeah! You know them Mooslims - if you treat 'em like human beings they just run wild all over you and pretty soon you are bowing to Mecca and wunnering what happened.

Yeehaw!

[Koolblue13]

I'm just glad I finally found out who the hell the crazy uncle was...only took 3 pages.

He is the only candidate who has been calling our financial situation since 2002 and voted against Iraq.

I read many of Ron Paul's various proposals and musings over the last couple of years.

You're better than this. There was so much non truth to that.

Actually, they are more irritating, because they are usually educated enough to know better.

And then you can make so much sense.

And what that has to do with defending The United States is?

Why do you do that? Cherry pick his well thought out post? He had addressed the question you asked. He was responding to "define war", then answered your question.

[Koolblue13]

Because the big difference with the Iraq war was that it was unnecessary.

Didn't 90% of the country want to invade Iraq?:doh:

[Switchgear]

Well, something dropped him from 90 percent approval in 2001 to 30 percent approval in 2008. Or were the polls just lying?

That's a bit of a misleading statement. Bush had an approval rating around 90 shortly after 9/11, but before that it was in the mid 50's. I was in college at the time, one of my liberal professors had his door covered in anti-Bush political cartoons by the middle of February 2001. There were plenty of Democrats and liberals that hated Bush from day 1, due to the close nature of the election.

[Midnight Judges]

Please...a HUGE portion of the democratic/leftwing (whichever lol) was criticizing Bush just from the 2000 election results alone. I must be the only one who remembers all of the remarks of "He's not my president", "he stole the presidency", "He had his conservative judges hand the presidency to him", "he's stupid", etc, etc...along with constantly referring to Gore as "president Gore". And this was before the war in Iraq and even before 9/11. The idea that it was the war that brought about all the criticism is nonsense.

lol, you are taking comments by the fringe left (8% of our population) and applying it to the entire Democratic party. Bush had a 92% approval rating at one point according to Washington Post/abc.

And for the record, pretty much every democratic congressman/woman voted in favor of the war at the time as well

lol! Where do you hear this crapola?

In the House of Representatives, 126 Democrats voted against the use of force in Iraq. 82 voted for it.

In the Senate, 29 Democrats voted for the use of force in Iraq (buttheads like Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton) 21 against it (Levin, Feingold, etc.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

[Predicto]

Didn't 90% of the country want to invade Iraq?:doh:

Not as far as I know.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Didn't 90% of the country want to invade Iraq?:doh:

A. There is no way on earth that figure is correct. (I checked some old polls; the number was around 60 percent. That alone is sort of remarkable in retrospect).

B. After a year of having the ever-living **** scared out of them, you probably could have talked the American people into anything at that point.

[Springfield]

I knew he would be like this. I miss Bush already.

:puke:

[Koolblue13]

A. There is no way on earth that figure is correct. (I checked some old polls; the number was around 60 percent. That alone is sort of remarkable in retrospect).

B. After a year of having the ever-living **** scared out of them' date=' you probably could have talked the American people into anything at that point.[/quote']

I don't remember, but I could have sworn that number was higher.

B is correct.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't remember, but I could have sworn that number was higher.

Well, when it doubt, making up numbers is always the best approach. 75 percent of all scientists agree.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Anyway, how dare he try to make people not hate America. It's Unamerican!

[SkinsHokieFan]

B. After a year of having the ever-living **** scared out of them' date=' you probably could have talked the American people into anything at that point.[/quote']

Sounds like the TARP and now stimilus

[wilsonian]

So you're saying he got at least 7 votes?

What percentage of the military voted for Paul?

I haven't been able to find any polls that answer that question, but if you can find some, I'd be interested to know. Nevertheless, the way the military voted with its pocketbook was significant. 70.6% of military donations went to anti-war candidates. Sure, the military only makes up a small percentage of the total population, but it's an interesting statistic and quite telling, I believe. Ron Paul warned Republicans that they would lose convincingly in the election if they didn't vote for him, and he was right.

[D'KanSkinFan]

Didn't 90% of the country want to invade Iraq?:doh:

Yes,

the exact words: "Make a glass parking lot" out of that country

As with time, people forget :doh:

[skinsince72]

Your two questions are identical.

If it's not necessary for Americans, then it's not necessary.

It may be desirable. But that's another matter.

This is why many people around the world hate Americans. I'm not being judgemental because I shared the same views at one point. In an earlier post, someone mentioned that the US does pick and choose which conflict to get involved with. Notice we haven't jumped into Africa too much? There are more crimes against humanity in Africa than can be counted. We choose not to get involved.

So we already have a reputation of only getting involved when it has do do with our interests. Then when our government does get involved, our citizens speak out and say "Pull out, why die for foreigners?"

We end up being hated by those who feel we stick our noses in places it doesn't belong and then being hated by the ones we are helping. Many foreigners see Americans as spoiled brats who only worry about making their next payment on that Mercedes or BMW instead of extending a hand to the tired, poor and huddled masses.(remember how we built this nation?)

So when you say "if it isn't necessary for Americans, then it isn't necessary", you fuel the very fire Obama is trying to throw some water on.

[Larry]

This is why many people around the world hate Americans. I'm not being judgemental because I shared the same views at one point. In an earlier post, someone mentioned that the US does pick and choose which conflict to get involved with. Notice we haven't jumped into Africa too much? There are more crimes against humanity in Africa than can be counted. We choose not to get involved.

So we already have a reputation of only getting involved when it has do do with our interests. Then when our government does get involved, our citizens speak out and say "Pull out, why die for foreigners?"

We end up being hated by those who feel we stick our noses in places it doesn't belong and then being hated by the ones we are helping. Many foreigners see Americans as spoiled brats who only worry about making their next payment on that Mercedes or BMW instead of extending a hand to the tired, poor and huddled masses.(remember how we built this nation?)

So when you say "if it isn't necessary for Americans, then it isn't necessary", you fuel the very fire Obama is trying to throw some water on.

The words "provide for the common defense" ring any bells?

Again. You want to try to tell me that the fact that there's (gasp!) a tyranical dictator running a country, out there, makes it necessary for the US to start a war?

We're gonna need a lot bigger military.

[luckydevil]

I read many of Ron Paul's various proposals and musings over the last couple of years. They were not just "non-interventionism," even though that was what he and his followers like to call it so it sounds better.

Withdrawing from the UN and NATO is not "non-intervention." Closing all overseas bases is not "non-interventionism." Dismantling all world trade institutions and shutting down our intelligence agencies is stupid.

It may be stupid, but it is most certainty not isolationist.

What a bizarre political culture we have in this country when something like closing military bases is considered isolationist. The lack of imagination when it comes to trade is troubling. God forbid a left-liberal or libertarian point out that trade institutions often serve the political connected and big business. That nobel prize winning Hayek was one crazy mofo. Oh and damn them for pointing out the organizations like the CIA led to the military industrial complex and a militarized culture. A culture that didn't dissent over the Iraq war when it mattered. Damn them

Your views on progressive leftists is disappointing, but not surprising. You are after all a managerial-liberal. Oh and of course a anti-establishment politician is going to attract the fringe. That's normal. It wasn't long ago, Reagan was considered crazy for his views and attracted some crazy folks. Barry Goldwater was the political father of the modern conservative movement. He attacked the new deal in public long before it was considered acceptable by establishment standards. His views on the role of the state on domestic front led to conservative dominance and is no different than Paul's. The same applies for people like George Mcgovern. Some of those very same people are responsible for the rise of Obama. The progressive netrooters is the reason why that man is president. So while folks like you were mocking those progressives, Obama was reading Saul Alinsky and winning elections.

[Redskins Diehard]

Oh, many of them have hated since we kicked out a democratically elected government and put the Shah in place, instead.

Although, granted, some of them are still using The Crusades as an excuse.

Some of them view us as the enemy for reasons like this : http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE50Q4QE20090127

and

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/08/house.gaza/

Right, wrong, or indifferent they view our "unqualified support" of Israel and a reason we are the enemy of the Muslim world. I think those two actions provide more weight to that argument, than the counterweight provided by the President's address.

There are other reasons as well..but these are two very recent examples of this particular reason

[Mad Mike]

I haven't been able to find any polls that answer that question, but if you can find some, I'd be interested to know. Nevertheless, the way the military voted with its pocketbook was significant. 70.6% of military donations went to anti-war candidates. Sure, the military only makes up a small percentage of the total population, but it's an interesting statistic and quite telling, I believe. Ron Paul warned Republicans that they would lose convincingly in the election if they didn't vote for him, and he was right.

Ron Paul was NOT going to win the election. PERIOD. HE'S A LOON who happens to have one or two decent ideas (if they are watered down to work in a real world). The rest of his beliefs are moronic.

[SnyderShrugged]

It may be stupid, but it is most certainty not isolationist.

What a bizarre political culture we have in this country when something like closing military bases is considered isolationist. The lack of imagination when it comes to trade is troubling. God forbid a left-liberal or libertarian point out that trade institutions often serve the political connected and big business. That nobel prize winning Hayek was one crazy mofo. Oh and damn them for pointing out the organizations like the CIA led to the military industrial complex and a militarized culture. A culture that didn't dissent over the Iraq war when it mattered. Damn them

Your views on progressive leftists is disappointing, but not surprising. You are after all a managerial-liberal. Oh and of course a anti-establishment politician is going to attract the fringe. That's normal. It wasn't long ago, Reagan was considered crazy for his views and attracted some crazy folks. Barry Goldwater was the political father of the modern conservative movement. He attacked the new deal in public long before it was considered acceptable by establishment standards. His views on the role of the state on domestic front led to conservative dominance and is no different than Paul's. The same applies for people like George Mcgovern. Some of those very same people are responsible for the rise of Obama. The progressive netrooters is the reason why that man is president. So while folks like you were mocking those progressives, Obama was reading Saul Alinsky and winning elections.

Truly awesome and well thought out post.:notworthy