Personally, I don't see anything wrong with such conversations, as long as they don't resort into personal slander.
He hasn't done anything, that's right, we can only hope, now that he won, he will do something. How could he do something before having the tools to do it? At least he hasn't done anything yet, unlike the Republicans who have done a lot of damage already.
That's precisely what I'm getting at. He hasn't done anything
yet, and yet there's already so much rejoicing that Obama is already the next savior of America. Only time will tell how good a president Obama will make, not his race or anything else. But since his campaign was based mainly on rhetoric, if you brush all the hype aside, what other noteworthy leadership qualities does he possess that we know of? None yet.
Really? More innocent people have died in Irak as a direct result of the US invasion than in all the terrorist attacks in all the world combined. It's easy to say they were "Al-Qaeda terrorists" after they are dead, but among the dead there have been women, children, farmers, old men, etc., all dead in bombings, attacks and terrorist-related conflicts. More than 1 million people have died in Irak after the invasion. Not even under Sadam Hussein (who was one mean son of a b*) there were so many dead.
Of course collateral damage is unavoidable in any war. But the big difference here is that the US troops and coalition forces try their best to minimize and avoid casualties. Whereas, Al Queda and extremists routinely pull aside women, kids, and the elderly as human shields to protect themselves from gunfire and also to tally up the body count against the coalition. A friend of my sister's ex (a 21 year old kid) serving in Iraq, fired upon and killed, an entire family of women and children in Iraq because some terrorist piece of shit, who was hiding in the back of their vehicle, coerced them to drive through a checkpoint and ignore repeated warnings to stop. It was all over the news here in Australia and they really portrayed this kid to be evil for doing what he did. He was really psychologically messed up over it. Yet, the reality is that this car could have been carrying suicide bombers or explosives and there was no other choice he could have made after the car refused to stop multiple times and the car started speeding towards them. These extremists are completely without remorse or compassion for life. They will do absolutely anything to win, even if that means killing other Muslims in the name of their cause.
On the other hand, I'd say hunger, lack of sanitation or many other problems are really the "biggest threat to humanity". Thousands of people die of malaria or hunger each year, specially in Africa. How many died from islamic terrorism?
I'm not attempting to downplay those things, but they are self-contained/isolated to certain parts of the world. Political Islam is by far a bigger threat on a worldwide scale, not only in regards to deaths but also due to the nature of its expansion and its penchant for slowly dissolving the cultural identity of any other country in encroaches upon. This is no secret and while I guess people don't like to talk about it, you only need look at North Africa, parts of Asia, and Western Europe to see the effect it's having. While I don't have exact numbers,
this site documents ongoing casualties and deaths committed in the name of Islamic terror on a daily basis and dates back several years. (You need to scroll to the bottom of the page for the list). As you can see, there are quite a lot. But killing in the name of Allah has been going on for centuries, unlike the Iraq war.
So, just to get this straight, even if Ahmadinejad was the beast some people (and news) think it is, are you saying that looking for a diplomatic solution is stupid, and the correct solution would be to make war on Iran, kill thousands of iranian innocent people (since that's inevitable in any war), and then proceed to the next "country who threatens West"? That would mean bombing at least Cuba, North Korea and Syria, according to the US "friend or foe" map of the world. Mmh, sounds like millions of dead people to me. No, I think I'll stick with the stupid solution of trying to find a diplomatic way out of this.
Looking for a diplomatic solution is never a bad idea. But negotiating with a leader who is an Islamist to the extent that Ahmadinejad is, is like trying to get blood from a stone. This is a man who permits 16 year-old-rape victims to be stoned to death by a mob shoulting "Allahu Akbar" after being buried waist-deep in dirt with their arms tied -- because the legal assumption by Iranian law is that she must have committed adultery; A man who allows homosexuals to be hung simply for existing in his country. Ahmadinejad has publicly made his intentions for Israel and the rest of the non-Muslim world quite clear. Knowing this, should we simply wait for a man like him to develop nuclear weapons and only try to take action when it's too late? Keep in mind that allowing such a monster to develop nuclear weapons and use them would also result in fatalities in the millions.
Sitting down for diplomatic discussions is all well and good, and if it works, then that's great. But not everything can always be resolved diplomatically. And if not... what happens then? What if Ahmadinejad takes advantage of these diplomatic discussions in order to buy himself time and draw attention away from Iran's nuclear program while possible weapons development continues? Obama will, at some point, have to take political actions that could make him lose his current level of popularity when he's dealing with extremist leaders in matters of conflict. He can't be president and then hide behind a rock, hoping to avoid that confrontation. That's all part of the job description.
Iranians also appear to be unique in the Middle East, in that many of them (particularly the younger generation) when surveyed, said that they would welcome a US invasion to help overthrow their government. From what I have read, a lot of Iranians are still partial to the former Zoroastrian religion and proud of their Persian ancestry, not Islam which they consider was forced upon them.
Needless to say, in most interpretations of the Quran, violence is frowned upon, and the term yihad is used as a "holy war that must be started when Islam is attacked". Of course, there are harder interpretations and that's where terrorists appear, but this is only a small fraction of muslims, and many other Islam leaders have pronounced against this hard, belicous interpretation of the Quran.
OK, in short, all I'm saying is: let's not confuse Islam with terrorism, most of islamic people are the kindest persons in the world.
The crusades were defensive conflict where Muslims were the aggressors. By the time the Crusades started, Muslims had already conquered over half of the Christian countries. Besides, the Crusaders did not invade any Muslim territory. But either way, I don't support brutality in ANY religion. Just because Christians occasionally do bad things too, this still doesn't address the issue that Islam is, at its core, a political movement fueled by violence and intolerance.
I'd be interested to know where you're getting this information that there are multiple versions of the Quran? Let's call a spade a spade here, shall we? This is the tried and true story that many Muslim apologists will often feed to people who are ignorant about their religion to reiterate to others to try and portray it in a positive light. In truth, you really don't need to be a scholar to pick up any copy of the Quran and find that it is absolutely riddled with violence, abuse, pedophilia, rape, misogyny, and murder. I mean, just open the book and it's right there in front of your eyes! I could rattle off a bunch of verses that verify all of the above, but I won't bother since they're all easy enough to locate online if you're so inclined. The name Islam means "submission" in itself, which is pretty telling. And the Quran has never been 'reformed' like the New Testament of Christianity. There's a reason why Islamic terrorists are committing these acts and it's not because they are misinterpreting Islam; it's because they're following the Quran verbatim as the word of Allah/Mohamed. Heck, the fact that merely talking critically about Islam can get a fatwa on your head is scary enough. Or that doing so can force you into hiding for over a decade like Salman Rushdie, or even get you killed like Theo Van Gogh.
Now, as for 'moderate' Muslims. Yes, thankfully, they are the majority and many of them are very good people. But what kind of religion necessitates such terms as "moderate Muslim" and "Islamophobia"? These words indicate that there is already a distinction between different rifts in this religion! Why is this religion scary enough to some people, that they have to coin a specific phrase to illustrate that very valid phobia? Why does such stigma exist around discussing Islam in the first place, if it's not guilty of the charges leveled against it? Have you ever heard of a "moderate Buddhist" or a "Hinduphobe"? Nope, didn't think so!
However, Islam is not an easy religion to leave. The Quran itself states that apostates must be put to death. Many Muslims are fearful to leave Islam, many others have convinced themselves to interpret the violent parts as an analogy that means something different, while others are just content to non-violently support the cause for global expansion by deceiving people with misinformation about their 'peaceful religion' while simultaneously increasing their numbers in countries by outbreeding the original inhabitants and changing the demographics. Higher numbers mean more power, after all.
Another true story. My brother works as a plumber. He worked every day on a construction site with an apprentice electrician who was a 21-year-old Muslim. He seemed like a totally normal guy who talked to everyone with nothing suspect about him. Then, one day, my brother and his coworkers heard on the news that this Muslim guy had been arrested. He was being observed by police at Kinglake (a place about 35 minutes drive from where I live) in remote forest area. He and a bunch of other extremists had a training camp set up there and this piece of trash was planning to become Australia's first suicide bomber by blowing up the MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground) and Crown Casino complex. I can't find a good news article on it right now, but you can Google it. Luckily, this asshole was arrested. But that's a little close to home, don't you think? It really makes me wonder about this Islamic expansion and how many Muslims living in the West are capable of being extremists. Rhetorical question: Once Muslims become a large majority of the population, how do you tell apart the extremists from the rest? Is there even a way? This is a cause for concern.
Tell that to iraqis themselves! Sure you can have a wonderful time in Iraq if you stay in the so called "Green Area". Try stepping outside of it to see how much good has been done to the country.
Are you speaking from personal experience? Many Iraqis do prefer the state of their country without Saddam, though they'd be unlikely to admit that. They have also improved the infrastructure, roads, highways, etc. there. Though, it's a slanted perspective. Christian Iraqis would obviously prefer the troops to remain. Muslim Iraqis want them out. Unfortunately, I think the mistake with the war is that you cannot force democracy on people who don't want to embrace it. That seems to be the difference between the Iraqis and Iranians.
Can you really say iraqis are in better condition today?
Not yet, and with Obama pulling out before the job's finished, they'll be even worse off.
This I also kind of agree with, although is very difficult that the US manages to make Iraq stable, seeing that part of the unstability comes from the mere US presence. It's called resistance.
True. And it begs the question, why resist someone who is trying to help your situation? Again, the intolerance preached by Islam is partly to blame here. The Iraqis could make the task easier of rebuilding their country, but Islam has them torn on whether to accept help from the infidels or to kick them out of the Middle East. Most of these Iraqi's are not educated to a high level. They are susceptible to whatever vile trash and propaganda about Israel and the west their Imam spews to them at their mosque. To them, this is the extent of their 'education' on outside affairs. Therefore, the concept that US troops could enter their country to assist (and not invade and loot) is against everything they have been told about Americans. On one side, everything they read in the Quran and are preached to about by their Imam tells them to fight and kill the unbelievers, yet on the other hand, they see a compassionate side too. They do not know who to trust because of the conflicting information they're getting and this tends to make for a bumpy transition.
I would suggest researching more about Islam, not only from Muslims you might know who will, naturally, portray it in a very positive light, but from other unbiased sources too. Read the Quran, talk to ex-Muslims and see why they left Islam in order to get a full perspective. Ignorance about this kind of thing on such a large scale is quite frightening, and it's something that really bothers me, because political Islam/extremism already has its foot well in the door. It's so easy to see all around us if we open our eyes, yet so many people have their heads buried in the sand. Obama believes that because he lived in Indonesia, he will have credibility with Muslim leaders, but Indonesia is a very moderate country as far as Islamic values are concerned and I understand that most Arabs do not consider Asians be a 'true' Muslims anyway. So, good luck to Obama. I think he'll surely need it!