• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 70 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
VeloCity said:
The apology was necessary to calm the Afghani's and put an immediate end to the controversy, which would've simmered otherwise and could, potentially, have become a central focus for opposition and for the Taliban. By issuing a formal apology on behalf of the US, Obama nipped that in the bud. It was the right thing to do not only toward the Afghani's but also for the safety of the troops and other foreigners in Afghanistan, and from a foreign policy perspective a politically astute move. Domestically it doesn't really matter - those who hate Obama would be all over him no matter what he did.
I suggest you spend some time ....a few months around the Religous nuts that you are asking the President of the United States to apologize to. Just a few weeks would have your perspective skewed a bit..in my opinon.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
I suggest you spend some time ....a few months around the Religous nuts that you are asking the President of the United States to apologize to. Just a few weeks would have your perspective skewed a bit..in my opinon.
Don't forget .. the Taliban were hor'd and dined in Houston by Enron and the Republican party in spite of non recognition by the President of The United States..
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
redtreviso said:
Don't forget .. the Taliban were hor'd and dined in Houston by Enron and the Republican party in spite of non recognition by the President of The United States..
damn those wascally wepubs!!!;)
 
With more fallout and protests today, it appears the President's apology over Koran burning accomplished next to nothing. Again, I'm not saying he should have been smug or defiant about it, but General Allen already apologized, I'm sure a plan was made to never, ever let it happen again, and that's the best we can do (short of accelerating the exit strategy). Nothing is going to stop many of those protesters from hating us.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
redtreviso said:
Don't forget .. the Taliban were hor'd and dined in Houston by Enron and the Republican party in spite of non recognition by the President of The United States..
I gotta hand it to you....you are an expert is diverting criticism with these obscure references. Yes, Obama should have apologized because Enron was associated with the Taliban.

BTW, you gotta a link to this accusation? I spend alot of time in downtown Houston, and I don't recall seeing a bunch of Taliban running around there back in the 90's. Thanks.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
ChrisE said:
I gotta hand it to you....you are an expert is diverting criticism with these obscure references. Yes, Obama should have apologized because Enron was associated with the Taliban.

BTW, you gotta a link to this accusation? I spend alot of time in downtown Houston, and I don't recall seeing a bunch of Taliban running around there back in the 90's. Thanks.
Careful, I suspect red was a busboy at the restaurant where it took place.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
The Hitch said:
Any evidence for this?
Evidence that you don't know much..

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a120497texasvisit


""December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas
Edit event

Taliban representatives in Texas, 1997.Taliban representatives in Texas, 1997. [Source: Lions Gate Films]Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/1997; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/1997] It has been claimed that the Taliban meet with Enron officials while in Texas (see 1996-September 11, 2001). Enron, headquartered in Texas, has an large financial interest in the pipeline at the time (see June 24, 1996). The Taliban also visit Thomas Gouttierre, an academic at the University of Nebraska, who is a consultant for Unocal and also has been paid by the CIA for his work in Afghanistan (see 1984-1994 and December 1997). Gouttierre takes them on a visit to Mt. Rushmore.""

(BTW) The Clinton Administration DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE TALIBAN AS AFGHAN's GOVERNMENT

There's also some youtube..Look it up yourself
 
The Hitch said:
At the risk of another famous redtreviso tirade of insults which any other poster would get banned for, I will point out that I was talking about the Republican party bit.
In fairness, I think he assumes native knowledge that the business/political affiliation there is not in question. One presumes the other.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
ChrisE said:
OK. You've convinced me. Obama should have apologized to the offended Afghans for US military mistakenly burning some bound paper. :rolleyes:
You said it didn't matter anyway..just gives right wing whiskey tango something to sh their britches about.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
redtreviso said:
You said it didn't matter anyway..just gives right wing whiskey tango something to sh their britches about.
It doesn't matter because the "offended" could care less about apologies. They just want a reason to tear shyt up, throw rocks, burn US flags, etc.

Yep, and not only will it have no influence on the "offended", it gives the right something to slam him with.

What a deal!

I suggest the US offer to dump billions into that shythole to show how sorry we are and how non-azzholish we are. Oh, wait.....
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
red_flanders said:
"Wow redtreviso, you were right about that part. Thanks for pointing it out."
Yes, how applicable the argument about geo-political business opportunities, pre-911, is to whether or not the president of the US apologize for this BS in 2012. :rolleyes:

Red put me in my place, yes sir. :cool:
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
quit dodging the question red. were you or were you not a busboy in the restaurant? and what is the purpose of that third fork? ;)
 
Mar 18, 2009
715
0
0
ChrisE said:
Yes, how applicable the argument about geo-political business opportunities, pre-911, is to whether or not the president of the US apologize for this BS in 2012. :rolleyes:

Red put me in my place, yes sir. :cool:
Uh-Huh, and under Carter Bzrezinski undermined the Afghan regime, bringing the Soviets into a Vietnam-like quagmire. Then Reagan armed the Taliban and called them "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." And Clinton armed the Taliban for a while. The point being that the only way you can imagine that a republican in the white house wouldn't be calling Karzai with his sincere apologies is if you have no historical memory. Do you really think there's any kind of difference between the two parties in this mess? Both are up to their elbows in the filth. The only difference is that the party without the current president gets to blame the party in power for doing exactly what they'd be doing if the roles were reversed.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Wallace said:
Uh-Huh, and under Carter Bzrezinski undermined the Afghan regime, bringing the Soviets into a Vietnam-like quagmire. Then Reagan armed the Taliban and called them "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." And Clinton armed the Taliban for a while. The point being that the only way you can imagine that a republican in the white house wouldn't be calling Karzai with his sincere apologies is if you have no historical memory. Do you really think there's any kind of difference between the two parties in this mess? Both are up to their elbows in the filth. The only difference is that the party without the current president gets to blame the party in power for doing exactly what they'd be doing if the roles were reversed.
What is your point? It seems as if you have gone off on some type of tangent here.
 
Mar 18, 2009
715
0
0
ChrisE said:
What is your point? It seems as if you have gone off on some type of tangent here.
Sorry. I didn't realize you were so short.

Simplified, my points are:
a) like the riots over there, the fuss about Obama's apology is a manufactured controversy, and taking it seriously is a waste of time.
b) of course Obama apologized, it's what presidents do. It puts pressure on Karzai to clean up the mess, although of course he won't/can't. Everyone involved knows this. It's all fake. It's all public relations. So what? To expect Obama to be "honest" or to "take a stand" on this issue is to show a complete lack of understanding about how politics works.
c) in terms of how the parties deal with and are responsible for the mess over there, there is absolutely no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

I think that covers it.

Actually, the "reality" of the situation is that the US is in a war we can't win. Bush knew it by the end of his time in office, and Obama knew it going in. All the talk about new strategies has been nothing but PR. Obama is trying to find a way to get out of Afghanistan without looking like we're in full retreat from the Taliban. Karzai knows that when the US leaves, he's dead meat. The only question is if Obama thinks there's a way the US can get out of there, and not leave the place a total cesspool. In the context of all this, worrying about Obama apologizing over the Koran business is like getting upset about a pimple on the face of someone with terminal cancer.
 
Wallace said:
Uh-Huh, and under Carter Bzrezinski undermined the Afghan regime, bringing the Soviets into a Vietnam-like quagmire. Then Reagan armed the Taliban and called them "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers."
Hold on there good buddy. If you go back to that time it wasn't "the Taliban" who were running things. Afghanistan before that were split badly between groups, but when the Soviets invaded the Mujahideen became an alliance of all Afghans to stop the Soviet invasion. It wasn't just the Taliban, not at all, that Carter and Reagan were supporting.
 
Mar 18, 2009
715
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Hold on there good buddy. If you go back to that time it wasn't "the Taliban" who were running things. Afghanistan before that were split badly between groups, but when the Soviets invaded the Mujahideen became an alliance of all Afghans to stop the Soviet invasion. It wasn't just the Taliban, not at all, that Carter and Reagan were supporting.
I agree that things were more complicated than my hasty shorthand in that post. Actually, Carter and Brzenzinski weren't supporting anyone--they were undermining the pro-Soviet regime in (successful) hopes that if it collapsed, the Soviets would be drawn into the unwinnable war we're now in. That is, Carter wasn't pro-Mujahideen, he was just using them in a gambit. But Reagan did support, along with the Mujahideen, the Taliban, hence that quote of his equating them with the Distant Dads.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Wallace said:
Sorry. I didn't realize you were so short.

Simplified, my points are:
a) like the riots over there, the fuss about Obama's apology is a manufactured controversy, and taking it seriously is a waste of time.
b) of course Obama apologized, it's what presidents do. It puts pressure on Karzai to clean up the mess, although of course he won't/can't. Everyone involved knows this. It's all fake. It's all public relations. So what? To expect Obama to be "honest" or to "take a stand" on this issue is to show a complete lack of understanding about how politics works.
c) in terms of how the parties deal with and are responsible for the mess over there, there is absolutely no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

I think that covers it.

Actually, the "reality" of the situation is that the US is in a war we can't win. Bush knew it by the end of his time in office, and Obama knew it going in. All the talk about new strategies has been nothing but PR. Obama is trying to find a way to get out of Afghanistan without looking like we're in full retreat from the Taliban. Karzai knows that when the US leaves, he's dead meat. The only question is if Obama thinks there's a way the US can get out of there, and not leave the place a total cesspool. In the context of all this, worrying about Obama apologizing over the Koran business is like getting upset about a pimple on the face of someone with terminal cancer.
a) Agreed.
b) BS. We will have to agree to disagree on this
c) Agreed. This was actually why I was asking you what your point was, and that still stands. My replies were based upon what Obama did. I would be equally critical if a wingnut did it. You have introduced something into this argument that is not relevant.

Agreed on the mess, though I don't agree with your conclusions. C'est la vie.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
ChrisE said:
a) Agreed.
b) BS. We will have to agree to disagree on this
c) Agreed. This was actually why I was asking you what your point was, and that still stands. My replies were based upon what Obama did. I would be equally critical if a wingnut did it. You have introduced something into this argument that is not relevant.

Agreed on the mess, though I don't agree with your conclusions. C'est la vie.

Foxnews just soaks in from your surroundings.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
ChrisE said:
Boy, I sure am glad he apologized. Just think of the carnage if he hadn't. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/26/world/asia/afghanistan-burned-qurans/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Maybe they are just ignorant of the apology.....there must be some breakdown in communication here. Perhaps the Amercan taxpayer should pay for a Direct TV satellite dish for each hut so they can get the message.
Yep, imagine what it would be if he hadn't apologized. That's the whole point.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/26/santorum-rips-obama-weakness-makes-political-hay-of-quran-burning.html
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS