Obama blasts Bush over 'Nazi' comments

[halfback20]

Another organization that operated inside the United States for some time, known as the SAAR Foundation, supported numerous Islamic "charities" and businesses. These charities were actually fronts that supported Islamic terrorist groups (Hamas, Al-Qaeda). The SAAR foundation was financed by Sulaiman Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi (S.A.A.R.). This man and his brother are very very rich Saudi Arabian men, who I believe still live in Saudi Arabia today.

[leatherneck]

Cease fire is defined in the Hezbollah dictionary as "time to reload".

 

Agree with the post, but just wanted the opportunity to compliment you on your avatar. You have 3 fine sons.

[AcesFull]

I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics you will employ to explain that double standard.

No such gymnastics are necessary. Iran's president was one of the leaders of the so-called students who took over our embassy and exposed Jimmy Carter's incompetence and naivete that most of us have come to recognize. Iran's government has directly supported terrorist groups attacks on American targets through training and financial support. Iran is operating training camps for the terrorists who are killing and maiming American troops.

 

While I agree that the Saudi government is not our friend and that they could be doing more to fight terrorists on their own soil, the Saudi government has come to this country's aid on many occasions. Most recently, the Saudi government issued a public statement warning Iran to stop meddling in the internal affairs of Lebanon.

 

The Saudi government is walking a tightrope. They are home to the Wahabbis and taking stronger action against groups like Al Qaeda could result in the toppling of the government and the installation of a government as hostile to the US as Iran. The last thing that this country should do is undermine another friendly government in the Middle East (a la Jimmy Carter) and facilitate the installation of a government dominated by Al Qaeda.

 

Our foreign policy should always be working in the best interests of the US. Having an American president directly negotiate with the thugs in Iran with no preconditions is not in our national interest.

 

If and when this country achieves energy independence from the Middle East, then we can begin making more demands on friendly governments like Saudi Arabia to purge their countries of terrorists.

 

Unfortunately, by irrationally opposing domestic oil drilling and new refinery construction, liberals have placed us over a barrel when it comes to negotiating with major oil producers.

[Hatz]

No such gymnastics are necessary. Iran's president was one of the leaders of the so-called students who took over our embassy and exposed Jimmy Carter's incompetence and naivete that most of us have come to recognize. Iran's government has directly supported terrorist groups attacks on American targets through training and financial support. Iran is operating training camps for the terrorists who are killing and maiming American troops.

 

While I agree that the Saudi government is not our friend and that they could be doing more to fight terrorists on their own soil, the Saudi government has come to this country's aid on many occasions. Most recently, the Saudi government issued a public statement warning Iran to stop meddling in the internal affairs of Lebanon.

 

The Saudi government is walking a tightrope. They are home to the Wahabbis and taking stronger action against groups like Al Qaeda could result in the toppling of the government and the installation of a government as hostile to the US as Iran. The last thing that this country should do is undermine another friendly government in the Middle East (a la Jimmy Carter) and facilitate the installation of a government dominated by Al Qaeda.

 

Our foreign policy should always be working in the best interests of the US. Having an American president directly negotiate with the thugs in Iran with no preconditions is not in our national interest.

 

If and when this country achieves energy independence from the Middle East, then we can begin making more demands on friendly governments like Saudi Arabia to purge their countries of terrorists.

 

Unfortunately, by irrationally opposing domestic oil drilling and new refinery construction, liberals have placed us over a barrel when it comes to negotiating with major oil producers.

 

 

I'm curious. Didn't George W. have a Republican controlled Congress when he came in? Couldn't he have done something about drilling and refinery construction then?

 

 

BTW, you explain the Saudi's problem very well but it's still a double standard no matter how you look at it.

[Mr.Fundamental]

I think it is interesting that Republicans find Bush's comments right in line, when the extreme of their party is Fasicm, (sp)!

[AcesFull]

I'm curious. Didn't George W. have a Republican controlled Congress when he came in? Couldn't he have done something about drilling and refinery construction then?

Republicans had a narrow majority and I am not sure whether they managed to get a vote on opening ANWR to drilling. However, the Republican Congress did send a bill to Bill Clinton's desk and he vetoed it.

BTW, you explain the Saudi's problem very well but it's still a double standard no matter how you look at it.Not at all. The same standard should be applied in all cases when dealing with other nations. The US should always act in its own self interest. There is an upside in engaging Saudi Arabia because its government is generally friendly toward American interests and the Saudis supply much of our oil. There is no upside in negotiating with Iran without some strict preconditions. Iran's government is hostile to ours and Iran is actively working to kill our troops through proxies.

 

Employing different strategies when dealing with different countries does not constitute a double standard, IMO. There is no reason for our nation to employ the same strategy in dealing with all nations of the world. In fact, such an approach to foreign policy would be disastrous.

[Hatz]

Republicans had a narrow majority and I am not sure whether they managed to get a vote on opening ANWR to drilling. However, the Republican Congress did send a bill to Bill Clinton's desk and he vetoed it.

BTW, you explain the Saudi's problem very well but it's still a double standard no matter how you look at it.Not at all. The same standard should be applied in all cases when dealing with other nations. The US should always act in its own self interest. There is an upside in engaging Saudi Arabia because its government is generally friendly toward American interests and the Saudis supply much of our oil. There is no upside in negotiating with Iran without some strict preconditions. Iran's government is hostile to ours and Iran is actively working to kill our troops through proxies.

 

Employing different strategies when dealing with different countries does not constitute a double standard, IMO. There is no reason for our nation to employ the same strategy in dealing with all nations of the world. In fact, such an approach to foreign policy would be disastrous.

 

I have no problem with your point except that we should not claim some moral high ground in our dealings. (i.e. We had to get rid of Iraq because they were led by a despotic dictator who abused his citizenry. Truth is the Saudi's aren't a whole lot better just like the military governments in the 80's in Central America weren't any better than the Communist ones)

[AcesFull]

I think it is interesting that Republicans find Bush's comments right in line, when the extreme of their party is Fasicm, (sp)!

Attempting to associate the National Socialist German Workers Party with the Republican Party is a common tactic employed by the socialists in the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

 

Can Americans not agree that there is no room for Nazis in either of the two major political parties? Hitler would not have been welcome in either party.

[Hatz]

Attempting to associate the National Socialist German Workers Party with the Republican Party is a common tactic employed by the socialists in the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

 

Can Americans not agree that there is no room for Nazis in either of the two major political parties? Hitler would not have been welcome in either party.

 

Actually he said "Fascism" which is not exclusive to the National Socialist German Workers Party. Mussoulini was "fascist" long before Germany. Franco was a "fascist" and remained neutral in WW II.

[AcesFull]

BTW, you explain the Saudi's problem very well but it's still a double standard no matter how you look at it.

Not at all. The same standard should be applied in all cases when dealing with other nations. The US should always act in its own self interest. There is an upside in engaging Saudi Arabia because its government is generally friendly toward American interests and the Saudis supply much of our oil. There is no upside in negotiating with Iran without some strict preconditions. Iran's government is hostile to ours and Iran is actively working to kill our troops through proxies.

 

Employing different strategies when dealing with different countries does not constitute a double standard, IMO. There is no reason for our nation to employ the same strategy in dealing with all nations of the world. In fact, such an approach to foreign policy would be disastrous.

 

I have no problem with your point except that we should not claim some moral high ground in our dealings. (i.e. We had to get rid of Iraq because they were led by a despotic dictator who abused his citizenry. Truth is the Saudi's aren't a whole lot better just like the military governments in the 80's in Central America weren't any better than the Communist ones)

The truth is, the Saudi government is a whole lot better than the former Iraqi government. Until we find mass graves in Saudi Arabia or uncover evidence of the use of poisonous gas on Saudi citizens, I just do not believe that shoe fits. The Saudi government has not shot at our planes, taken our citizens hostage, plotted to assassinate our president, or advocated our destruction.

 

I agree that the Saudi royal family occupies no high moral ground, but our decision to treat them as a legitimate government in contrast to the Iranian government really has nothing to do with their morality and everything to do with what is best for this country.

 

Saddam's mistake was invading Kuwait and threatening the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. His failure to abide by the terms of Iraq's surrender led to his downfall. IMO, it was in our national interests to take Saddam's government down because he would have always been a threat to our national security.

[Hatz]

Not at all. The same standard should be applied in all cases when dealing with other nations. The US should always act in its own self interest. There is an upside in engaging Saudi Arabia because its government is generally friendly toward American interests and the Saudis supply much of our oil. There is no upside in negotiating with Iran without some strict preconditions. Iran's government is hostile to ours and Iran is actively working to kill our troops through proxies.

 

Employing different strategies when dealing with different countries does not constitute a double standard, IMO. There is no reason for our nation to employ the same strategy in dealing with all nations of the world. In fact, such an approach to foreign policy would be disastrous.

 

I have no problem with your point except that we should not claim some moral high ground in our dealings. (i.e. We had to get rid of Iraq because they were led by a despotic dictator who abused his citizenry. Truth is the Saudi's aren't a whole lot better just like the military governments in the 80's in Central America weren't any better than the Communist ones)The truth is, the Saudi government is a whole lot better than the former Iraqi government. Until we find mass graves in Saudi Arabia or uncover evidence of the use of poisonous gas on Saudi citizens, I just do not believe that shoe fits. The Saudi government has not shot at our planes, taken our citizens hostage, plotted to assassinate our president, or advocated our destruction.

 

I agree that the Saudi royal family occupies no high moral ground, but our decision to treat them as a legitimate government in contrast to the Iranian government really has nothing to do with their morality and everything to do with what is best for this country.

 

Saddam's mistake was invading Kuwait and threatening the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. His failure to abide by the terms of Iraq's surrender led to his downfall. IMO, it was in our national interests to take Saddam's government down because he would have always been a threat to our national security.

 

We would probably agree that we would disagree on this.

 

The Saudi government is very anti-Christian to the point of persecutions and arrests of Christians among their citzenry and among outsiders as well. They are very harsh on the women of their society, some to the point of death and harm.

 

As to the murders of Sadaam's Iraq, I can't argue against those atrocities. However our own country had local governments that perpetrated the massacres at Rosewood, Florida and Tulsa, OK or Brownsville, TX in just the last century. We didn't advocate an overthrow of their municipalities or march in with an invastion force over them. I'm only saying that our history is not free from stain either and has some rather heinous chapters that we neither teach nor learn about.

[AcesFull]

Actually he said "Fascism" which is not exclusive to the National Socialist German Workers Party. Mussoulini was "fascist" long before Germany. Franco was a "fascist" and remained neutral in WW II.

I understand that, but Bush's reference was to Hitler's Germany, so I believe that I was correct in citing the German example in favor of the Italian example.

[Hatz]

I understand that, but Bush's reference was to Hitler's Germany, so I believe that I was correct in citing the German example in favor of the Italian example.

 

:thumb:

[pigman]

I've got a little secret for you: just about every bloody country in the Middle East is involved in the support of terrorist groups to one degree or another. And some of these countries are ostensibly considered our close allies in the region. Saudi Arabia was more directly involved in the 9/11 attacks in terms of providing financing and manpower than any other country in the world. Saudi Arabia has had a continuous role in supporting destabilizing terrorism within Iraq since the U.S. invasion. Read for yourself:

 

The Saudi Connection--In Iraq and elsewhere, terrorism thrives with Saudi support.

 

Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks

 

Terrorist Sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China

 

So please, before you feign shock and disgust at the notion of opening a dialogue with countries such as Iran because you say they sponsor terrorism, why don't we at least be honest with ourselves? If merely talking to the Iranians should be so off limits by your way of thinking, shouldn't we similarly give the cold shoulder to the Saudis? Maybe we should even refuse to buy their oil. :eek:

 

 

I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics you will employ to explain that double standard.

 

Thank you, there were more Saudis on the suicide planes than any other country, at least that is my understanding.

[thegooch]

I could care less if terrorists or radicals of all people respect the US. They don't deserve to be on this planet as far as I'm concerned.

 

The words terrorist and radicals are very objective words. Some would consider Americans radical capitalists, or even as far as terrorists. We have understand that though we see them as the bad guy , and have things to back that label up with, they have just as much proof or reasons as to why they think we are terrorists or radicals. Its not because they "hate freedom, or just hate America" they have strong logical reasons; just as we do.

 

You say that radicals dont deserve to be on this earth, What about radical Christians, or Radical republicans? Or do you expect the entire world to use your definition of the word?