Scott, it would be a shame for you to be 'driven away' from HP. As you can see from the posts on this thread, there are many people on HP who don't disrespect Obama. Personally I think anyone who took over from Bush was on a hiding to nothing from the beginning. Stay away from this thread by all means, but stay on HP.
I don't totally disrespect Obama. Goodness, an improvement by a long shot from what came before! But it is so disappointing to see politicians (or anyone in fact), when you expected you just might get better from them, spout -
Lies. The title I put to this thread was deliberate of course. For one thing, it's disappointing about Obama. For a second thing, it's a journalistic technique to title something a tad provacatively, and why not if it's true? (If I met him, I'm sure I'd really like him.) But thirdly, and most importantly, the thread title is factually true, and Obama knows it.
The thread went somewhat off-beam into Iran, and gawd knows who mentioning North Korea (don't ask me!).
But Obama lied knowingly on several instances regarding his false speach that American aggressive forces had pulled out of Iraq, and why they were there in the first place. The speach was pure bunk, and I was disappointed in him deeply. So the thread went a tad off-topic, yet my initial post was the point I wished to make.
BTW, for those less acquainted with HP posting, current affairs used to crop up all over the place, on various sub-forums. Many on the sub-forums didn't want what inevitably can become respectful disagreements. So the Current Affairs forum was created by the Mods with a bit of lee-way for more disagreement, a bit more - however they worded it.
If people don't want to hear that 9/11 might not be the story being sold to them, or that not all politicians are saints, etc, etc, it's simple just to avoid the Current Affairs forum. 🙂
V
I knew someone would play the "don't visit the thread" card. But then only one view would be heard, wouldn't it? And not unlike American Conservative Talk Radio, usually it's the dangerous view that is loudest.
Holos, I understand what you mean about ego and not caring what others say (After all, I am from the U.S. - a country that has this down pat). I wonder what the world would be like if no-one cared what anyone said... What a lovely picture.
Scott, this is a lot like US conservative talk radio. It makes no difference what the opposition says, the "host" doesn't hear. =) You can't make yourself heard, so I don't try.
Those who believe themselves to be right (pun intended) don't need to take any other position into consideration. If you disagree, they talk louder and that makes them more dangerous and makes you the target.
Lies. The title I put to this thread was deliberate of course. For one thing, it's disappointing about Obama. For a second thing, it's a journalistic technique to title something a tad provacatively, and why not if it's true? (If I met him, I'm sure I'd really like him.) But thirdly, and most importantly, the thread title is factually true, and Obama knows it.
If people don't want to hear that 9/11 might not be the story being sold to them, or that not all politicians are saints, etc, etc, it's simple just to avoid the Current Affairs forum. 🙂
V
I am with you on this one Venetian, sad, upsetting but so very true.
Those who believe themselves to be right (pun intended) don't need to take any other position into consideration. If you disagree, they talk louder and that makes them more dangerous and makes you the target.
Holos, [brrrr] how suddenly Rush Limbaugh-esque 'Current Affairs' has become. I believe I shall treat the 'Current Affairs' sub-forum as I do with the radio...
funny how promising change just keeps everything the same! lol
I don't know about lies and all that - I treat most words from politicians as less than fully open and honest - seems to come with the job.
in terms of Iran having nuclear weapons - I believe they are fully entitled to seek to arm themselves to a similar level as the potentially hostile states in the area - and that means Israel. 'WE' gave Israel nuclear weapons, 'WE' caused the instability that this 'gift' carries with it, and now 'WE' seek to dicatate that Iran should stand defenseless against a state that has them. If Israel was disarmed of nuclear weapons I suspect Iran's stance would be more easily changed.chris
Chris
I couldn't agree more...if one country has the right to nuclear technology then all countries have a similar right. Either we take them away from Israel or if we can't then stop complaining about others.
Kaif
Chris
I couldn't agree more...if one country has the right to nuclear technology then all countries have a similar right. Either we take them away from Israel or if we can't then stop complaining about others.
Kaif
And you still won't be complaining if they're used, or use is threatened?
The point of nuclear non-proliferation is that the more nations that have such weapons, the more likely is their use. And it's by no means a numbers game in terms of "number of nations". Some nations or regimes are far less responsible than others.
V
The point of nuclear non-proliferation is that the more nations that have such weapons, the more likely is their use. And it's by no means a numbers game in terms of "number of nations". Some nations or regimes are far less responsible than others.
V
I'm all for nuclear non-proliferation as long as ALL countries are prohibited from owning nuclear weapons.
As for "responsible" thats a relative term. Perhaps you think Israel is responsible and others are not. That's a political viewpoint not a rational one.
Kaif
And you still won't be complaining if they're used, or use is threatened?
The point of nuclear non-proliferation is that the more nations that have such weapons, the more likely is their use. And it's by no means a numbers game in terms of "number of nations". Some nations or regimes are far less responsible than others.
V
Of course it's not a numbers game. It is when the nuclear club consisted of only one member that nuclear weapons were ever used.
Please remember what nation is the only one to have actually used a nuclear device against another nation. And then let us speak of responsible nations...
No one who own nuclear weapons can be regarded as responsible, they own, with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction, this alone makes them an irresponsible threat.
Part of the problem is when there is an imbalance - this was what happened in wwII, and it is currently the exact situation we see in the middle east, one nation has them (and is not part of the nuclear community and refuses to be inspected) and the others will strive to achieve parity - in terms of self-survival this is fair.
If we want to achive partity and safety then the answer only lies with disarming everyone in the area.
The middle east danger is caused by Israel, not by Iran. This means it is equally caused by the USA, currently led by a nobel peace prize winner, and the UK, who provided the weapons - shame on them (us).
chris
Wow, completely agree with everything the op says, some wisdom at last!
Obama has lied on many, many occasions.
My reply seems to have vanished...
Wow, I completely agree with everything the OP has said, a bit of over due wisdom!
Obama has lied on many, many occasions.
The middle east danger is caused by Israel, not by Iran. This means it is equally caused by the USA, currently led by a nobel peace prize winner, and the UK, who provided the weapons - shame on them (us).
chris
Is there documentary evidence that the UK (or the USA for that matter) supplied Israel with nuclear weapons? (Putting emphasis on the UK question.)
V