TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Why is Obama's middle name taboo?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why is Obama's middle name taboo? - Page 2

post #31 of 51
Thread Starter 
The President of Iran wants to destroy Israel and makes no bones at all about saying it to the world. He calls Jews the scum of the earth. He says the Holocaust never happened and has his military giving arms and aid to terrorists who are fighting OUR military. You REALLY want to sit down with talks with someone like that? WOW


Here is a nice link about Iran. They are supplying long-range rockets to Hamas and being shot from Gaza into Israel since last week.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
The President of Iran wants to destroy Israel and makes no bones at all about saying it to the world. He calls Jews the scum of the earth. He says the Holocaust never happened and has his military giving arms and aid to terrorists who are fighting OUR military. You REALLY want to sit down with talks with someone like that? WOW


Here is a nice link about Iran. They are supplying long-range rockets to Hamas and being shot from Gaza into Israel since last week.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
What is to be hurt by sitting down and trying to talk things out first? Why does WAR have to be the FIRST action? Governments are much like regular people. When you have a disagreement with someone, doesn't it usually help to sit down and talk and try to negotiate a peaceful resolve, before trying to go to an all out war?

I think Obama has the right and most sensible idea. Try to talk things out. Then if no peaceful settlement can be made, then perhaps War will be inevitable.

War is a horrible and costly thing, not only in money, but in human lives on BOTH sides. It would be MUCH better to try to talk things out than start all of Killing.
post #33 of 51
Thread Starter 
Do you honestly think that you can have a sit-down with Abedinejad or whatever his name is and everything will be hunky dory? All of a sudden Iran will love Israel and stop wanting to "blow them off the face of the Earth"

These people have hated Israel since Old Testament times for goodness sakes. Please don't think that Barak can sit down and clear everything up in with a little chat. Not trying to offend here but it must be nice to be so young and naive
There is no way on God's green Earth that they will stop hating the Jews. NONE

I believe that you do NOT negotiate AT ALL with terrorists, if you do you give them credibility.

Did it help when Clinton chatted with Arafat? No, but it lent him some credibility. My Gosh, we are talking about State sponsered terrorism here and people want to have a meet-and-greet. I'm speechless.
post #34 of 51
We stopped speaking to North Korea and they continued on. Now Bush is speaking to them and they have the nuclear capabilities.

We stopped speaking to Iran when they had a moderate leader. Undermined him so much that the hardliners got back into power.

As long as there is a line of communication, we can make progress. Stop speaking and we don't have a chance.
post #35 of 51
Just want to bring up a little point here.

When things most recently started getting tense with Iran, our NATO allies wanted to take charge with negotiations, namely German, Great Britain and France. They had many sit downs with Ahmadinajad. It was taken up with the UN, who has again imposed stronger sanctions on them today. We took a back seat on this one so we weren't the only ones "policing the world". Obviously those ongoing talks with the EU nations hasn't made one bit of progress. But we haven't stepped in to take over.

So can anyone tell me why we should be the ones leading the charge against Iran? This is seriously one of those "damned if we do and damned if we don't" situations. Since Bush hasn't made the outreach to him, we aren't trying. If we had led the coalition talks, then we would have been trying to control the world and warmongerers.

Obama supporters like that he's willing to talk, but I just read a column today by a Clinton supporter who thinks that statement - to have unconditional talks with Iran - is foolish and shows his lack of foreign policy understanding.
post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Obama supporters like that he's willing to talk, but I just read a column today by a Clinton supporter who thinks that statement - to have unconditional talks with Iran - is foolish and shows his lack of foreign policy understanding.
Hillary Clinton wants to win, so she will send out ANYTHING from her camp, to try to discredit Obama. If you want to come to the root of things, I think it was someone in the Clinton Camp who has caused the stinkeroo about Obama's middle name.
post #37 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
So can anyone tell me why we should be the ones leading the charge against Iran? This is seriously one of those "damned if we do and damned if we don't" situations. Since Bush hasn't made the outreach to him, we aren't trying. If we had led the coalition talks, then we would have been trying to control the world and warmongerers.
I think there is a certain validity to this argument - the US is in a difficult situation when it comes to handling foreign policy - especially sticky foreign policy such as with Iran.

However, the current approach (i.e. war) hasn't proved to work very well, and regardless, if you want real change in the world, you need to change the way you do things. Sometimes that means radically changing the way you do things. And keeping on doing them the new way until change is achieved. In the words of the wonderful Mahatma Ghandi, we need to `be the change we want to see'.

There's something very noble about being the instigator of more peaceful approaches to things. Even if it is hard. Even if it seems like it won't work.

We live in dangerous times - there are many issues facing the world and they need to be handled with diplomacy and statesmanship, not bullying, war and aggression. For the US to step up a level, and take responsibility for attempting peaceful means of resovling issues is a HUGE opportunity and would be a very, very impressive undertaking.

To simply write off these means because it might be a bit tough is never going to change anything.
post #38 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
I think there is a certain validity to this argument - the US is in a difficult situation when it comes to handling foreign policy - especially sticky foreign policy such as with Iran.

However, the current approach (i.e. war) hasn't proved to work very well, and regardless, if you want real change in the world, you need to change the way you do things. Sometimes that means radically changing the way you do things. And keeping on doing them the new way until change is achieved. In the words of the wonderful Mahatma Ghandi, we need to `be the change we want to see'.
But we're not using war as any kind of approach to Iran. Actually, not even the threat of war. Sure, there have been rumors but there has been nothing to substantiate those rumors. Just because it is the US's foreign policy does not mean that war is the current approach. Like I said - other countries in NATO wanted to take the lead. They are the ones who initiated talks with Iran, they have submitted the reports to NATO and the UN. The UN Security Council, in which we are only one of many, has been the one who have issued sanctions against Iran. With the exception of rhetoric, there has been little to no direct interaction between the US and Iran. It has been though other countries and NATO and the UN.

I fail to see how the US's current approach of not being the lead in approaching and being in talks with, nor being the lead in international sanctions against them, as done by the UN (which was such a big deal that we didn't do all of this enough - 11 years wasn't enough - with Iraq). So why are we STILL the bad guys when we are following protocol, allowing others to be lead, and going through the UN??

See, this is what I mean by "damned if we do, damned if we don't". It doesn't matter what we (the US) does - we're still wrong.
post #39 of 51
I know Europeans don't want a nuclear weapon used anywhere in the world but I think a sizeable number of Europeans really wouldn't mind if Israel no longer existed. Israel is the country that Iran has been most vocal about destroying but I doubt that they would stop there. I know it isn't politically correct to talk about blood for oil but imagine the havoc he would cause if he controlled Mideast oil. We are complaining about prices with $100.00 a barrel oil imagine if it were 4 or 5 times that amount if we could get it. The demand in China and India that has driven the price up to the point it is now would still be using it. Of course Iran would probably continue to sell to China but the market for their goods would be considerably smaller. Our economy, or what is left of it, would fall completely apart as would the European economies. The Iranian leader would have accomplished his aim, complete global chaos so that the Mahdi could return and the world could become a perfect Islamic society. I know it sounds crazy but that is what he professes to believe. Many European leaders believe that all people are basically reasonable and there is a limit to how far they will go and I doubt they believe that he will go this far. I hope they are right.
post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
But we're not using war as any kind of approach to Iran. Actually, not even the threat of war. Sure, there have been rumors but there has been nothing to substantiate those rumors.
Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was just talking in general terms.

Quote:
Just because it is the US's foreign policy does not mean that war is the current approach. Like I said - other countries in NATO wanted to take the lead. They are the ones who initiated talks with Iran, they have submitted the reports to NATO and the UN. The UN Security Council, in which we are only one of many, has been the one who have issued sanctions against Iran. With the exception of rhetoric, there has been little to no direct interaction between the US and Iran. It has been though other countries and NATO and the UN.

I fail to see how the US's current approach of not being the lead in approaching and being in talks with, nor being the lead in international sanctions against them, as done by the UN (which was such a big deal that we didn't do all of this enough - 11 years wasn't enough - with Iraq). So why are we STILL the bad guys when we are following protocol, allowing others to be lead, and going through the UN??

See, this is what I mean by "damned if we do, damned if we don't". It doesn't matter what we (the US) does - we're still wrong.
I agree with what you're saying - I probably just didn't put it very well. Again, I was really talking in very general terms - not just about the US (although you were my example) but about world leaders in general. A bit more of an open-minded and accommodating attitude would do a lot of good in the world, I'm thinking. And because there will always be leaders who cannot and will not approach things this way, I think it is our responsibility as democratic nations to take the lead.
post #41 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denice View Post
Many European leaders believe that all people are basically reasonable and there is a limit to how far they will go and I doubt they believe that he will go this far. I hope they are right.
yea well, Then the european leaders do not really understand humans.
post #42 of 51
He may have been born in the USA but he carries a Muslim name and people associate Muslims with terrorism, regardless of where they were born. TBH I'm surprised that he's doing as well as he is in the campaign. I would have thought that the people of the US would have held his Muslim ancestory, even if he himself isn't Muslim, against him.

TBH I haven't been following the US election campaign because to me it seems more like a 3 ring circus than an election for a presidency, but when I heard the name "Barack Obama", my first thought was "Wow! A Muslim US President?!"
post #43 of 51
dont care about Muslim ancestory, What i care about is some of the people around him, Who are very racist.
post #44 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was just talking in general terms.


I agree with what you're saying - I probably just didn't put it very well. Again, I was really talking in very general terms - not just about the US (although you were my example) but about world leaders in general. A bit more of an open-minded and accommodating attitude would do a lot of good in the world, I'm thinking. And because there will always be leaders who cannot and will not approach things this way, I think it is our responsibility as democratic nations to take the lead.
Thanks for clarifying, Sarah. I see what you're saying, and I agree with you as well. It would be nice if more accommodation and open mindedness were in ALL of the leaders. I also think that there needs to be realistic expectations when dealing with other world leaders. And some of them and loons. I know a lot of people think Bush is a loon.
post #45 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
I know a lot of people think Bush is a loon.
Er... well, yes. Um. No comment
post #46 of 51
Thread Starter 
I don't understand the first sentence of this post, why in the world would, "a sizeable number of Europeans really wouldn't mind if Israel no longer existed"?
Where do you get your info or is this Your opinion, if so, what makes you think that? I'm confused. I hope you are wrong about this. I would hate to think that a "sizeable" number of Europeans are such anti-Semites. I thought Europe was so much more into diversity than the U.S.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Denice View Post
I know Europeans don't want a nuclear weapon used anywhere in the world but I think a sizeable number of Europeans really wouldn't mind if Israel no longer existed. Israel is the country that Iran has been most vocal about destroying but I doubt that they would stop there. I know it isn't politically correct to talk about blood for oil but imagine the havoc he would cause if he controlled Mideast oil. We are complaining about prices with $100.00 a barrel oil imagine if it were 4 or 5 times that amount if we could get it. The demand in China and India that has driven the price up to the point it is now would still be using it. Of course Iran would probably continue to sell to China but the market for their goods would be considerably smaller. Our economy, or what is left of it, would fall completely apart as would the European economies. The Iranian leader would have accomplished his aim, complete global chaos so that the Mahdi could return and the world could become a perfect Islamic society. I know it sounds crazy but that is what he professes to believe. Many European leaders believe that all people are basically reasonable and there is a limit to how far they will go and I doubt they believe that he will go this far. I hope they are right.
post #47 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
He may have been born in the USA but he carries a Muslim name and people associate Muslims with terrorism, regardless of where they were born. TBH I'm surprised that he's doing as well as he is in the campaign. I would have thought that the people of the US would have held his Muslim ancestory, even if he himself isn't Muslim, against him.

TBH I haven't been following the US election campaign because to me it seems more like a 3 ring circus than an election for a presidency, but when I heard the name "Barack Obama", my first thought was "Wow! A Muslim US President?!"
Actually Linda, that surprises me as well. I heard one Hilary supporter on the news last night say that she was surprised that anti-feminism was stronger than anti-black in America. Perhaps that explains his popularity. I honestly don't know, just paraphrasing what she said on the news.
post #48 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Actually Linda, that surprises me as well. I heard one Hilary supporter on the news last night say that she was surprised that anti-feminism was stronger than anti-black in America. Perhaps that explains his popularity. I honestly don't know, just paraphrasing what she said on the news.
Black men got the right to vote LONG before women did. Anti-feminism is simply masked through patronization of women. The sentiment is still alive and well in the U.S.
post #49 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
The problem is this: Barack Hussein Obama, JR is much different than Barack Hussein Obama.

He was named after his father.

BTW: If I were Obama I'd jump all over John Sidney McCain.


EDIT: Really, it's the way it's said. It seems more like a school yard taunt than anything else.
How about William Jefferson Blythe Clinton?

Hmmm...I don't know Hillary's middle name. Should I?

The idea, of course, is to subtly imply that Obama is Muslim. Which is like naming a Vega "El Dorado." It doesn't change the car, or even describe it. Unlike product names, most of us had nothing to do with our names; they were assigned before we even manifested any personality. They are not descriptive, only nominative.
post #50 of 51
Hillary's middle name is Diane. Not much that could be done with that. McCain's is Sydney. Good for a laugh on the playground as kids but that's about it.
post #51 of 51
This whole thread is absurd.

Cindy, you share a name with the youngest and most idiotic member of the Brady Bunch. Does that mean you are also a blonde, witless patootie?

Somehow I don't think so.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Why is Obama's middle name taboo?