Kissenger, Powell, Pooh Bear?

[Timberwoof]

Originally Posted by Lars

any story of morality is as subjective as the reader, black sambo...

Well, since Star Wars and Winnie the Pooh are familiar to everyone in Amiland, they should not exactly be considered foreign concepts. Now if I were to try to illustrate some moral point with a parable from Struvvelpeter[1], no one here would get it.


[1] Pronounced like Shtrooffel Peter. A cartoon character, he was the Original Hippie: he never got his hair cut, and awful things happened to him and all his friends. He's one of the reasons a lot of Germans are neurotic.

[Bones343]

Originally Posted by Swedish goalie

Germany didnt attack USA it was the japs because of that I think USAs effort in europe was unselfish act.

.

I'll take Jap Anus relations for 200.

And if you read what he wrote, he said that Germany declared war on the US on December 11, 1941, not that they attacked the US. The funny thing about reading, is you have to actually read.

The US could have entered the war years earlier. However they only joined after they were attacked and war was declared upon them in the European theater.

Why do you insist on trying to talk about things that not only don't affect you, but you don't know about?

[RyJ Maduro]

Originally Posted by Timberwoof

Getting back on the subject, it's easy to jump on Obama because of this Pooh and Star Wars thing ... if you're a brainless lout who doesn't understand anything about the deeper messages of morality that such stories tell us.

It's all a matter of the overall narrative. Obama's and his advisors have demonstrated on many occasions their dangerous naiveté on matters of foreign affairs, especially relating to the War on Terror and the overall situation in the Middle East.

Obama unfortunately clings to a September 10th mindset where he refuses to recognize terrorism, specifically the threat of Islamic extremism and jihad, as a military threat to the United States, instead promoting a policy of law enforcement to "bring terrorists to justice." This approach has clearly failed, as for decades jihadists hit American targets abroad, ratcheting up the intensity throughout the 90's as they struck the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the World Trade Center while Clinton did nothing but throw the Blind Sheik in jail. Defending last weeks Supreme Court ruling on GITMO, Obama ridiculously suggested that approach was appropriate and sufficient to protect American lives and property.

If you recall, during the primaries I strongly criticized Huckabee for the well intentioned but foolish assertion that our foreign policy should be based on the Golden Rule.

Disney stories and movies with positive messages are wonderful ways to instill good values in children so they can grow up to be decent adults who deal with each other civilly in everyday life. They are not, however, in any way, blueprints for dealing with dangerous rogue states and genocidal fanatics.

[biguglygoalie]

yeah and the stubborn tough talking texas cowboy routine has worked so much better

[TIMMAAYY]

That's not W.... he can't skate.

[ThePM]

Originally Posted by Bones343

I'll take Jap Anus relations for 200.

And if you read what he wrote, he said that Germany declared war on the US on December 11, 1941, not that they attacked the US. The funny thing about reading, is you have to actually read.

The US could have entered the war years earlier. However they only joined after they were attacked and war was declared upon them in the European theater.

Why do you insist on trying to talk about things that not only don't affect you, but you don't know about?

Exactly. The Japs declared war, so subsequently Hitler (being the idiot he could be) declared war on the US of A.

Swedish, at least know what you're talking about...

[Lars]

"Jap" is a racist term and should not be used by a person in this century.

[Timberwoof]

Originally Posted by Lars

"Jap" is a racist term and should not be used by a person in this century.

What was that you were saying about racism?

Originally Posted by Lars

any story of morality is as subjective as the reader, black sambo...

[Timberwoof]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

This approach has clearly failed, as for decades jihadists hit American targets abroad, ratcheting up the intensity throughout the 90's as they struck the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the World Trade Center while Clinton did nothing but throw the Blind Sheik in jail.

Nothing, eh? Explain to me again why the Republicans were screaming "tail wagging the dog" when Clinton wanted to bomb terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. I recall that any time Clinton tried to pursue military options against the terrorists, the Republicans got in the way, saying that it was just a distraction from the Lewinsky affair or that Clinton could not certify this or that about which terrorist leaders were in which camps.

As for presidents doing nothing, remember that Clinton tried to tell Bush II that international terrorism would be his biggest problem. However, Bush II cut funding for antiterrorist efforts down to about the same level as SETI.

And explain to me exactly what Bush's war in Iraq has to do with terrorism. Never mind; you've never been able to come up with a good answer for that question, and you never will.

[Lars]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Obama unfortunately clings to a September 10th mindset where he refuses to recognize terrorism, specifically the threat of Islamic extremism and jihad, as a military threat to the United States, instead promoting a policy of law enforcement to "bring terrorists to justice." This approach has clearly failed, as for decades jihadists hit American targets abroad, ratcheting up the intensity throughout the 90's as they struck the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the World Trade Center while Clinton did nothing but throw the Blind Sheik in jail. Defending last weeks Supreme Court ruling on GITMO, Obama ridiculously suggested that approach was appropriate and sufficient to protect American lives and property.

Sorry but that whole paragraph is nonsense. A military threat is a combination of capability coupled with intention. So for example China has the capability but not the intention, the global cabal of evil men with beards has the intention but not the capability.

As for Clinton doing nothing, the cigar, blowjob loving goon (eh?), well frankly its morons like Bush with GOOD and EVIL axis that accelerate the problem. The problem being that since the fall of the USSR the ability to monitor and control both internal and external dissidents and insurgent operatives is not possible.
You speak of terrorism in the USA as if it were a unique phenomena but interestingly its simply a feature of this world and a result of power politics.

As old terrorists decline, see the fall of the IRA, the FARC, the Shining Path, the Maoists in Nepal, the LTTE (Sri Lanka). A decline caused either by resolution or ossification of the traditional motivations of these groups (even lucrative drug running is not enough to maintain these groups). Then the new foundation stone for terrorism takes hold. Namely religious politics.

Islam cloaks its terrorism in the language of religion, after all murder needs an alibi and the best one has always been; good.
So what does the US do in response to this? Instead of funding effective education campaigns or attempting to reform the Wahhabi lunatics or trying to alleviate the grass root cause and prevent this from happening. What does it do? It occasionally bombs the bejaysus out of the poorest filthiest slums where these refugees (both political, as victims of strife and societal, as representatives of a perverse logic most decent people recoil from).

This was the traditional response but now the response has escalated, but along the traditional trajectory. In a typical phallic swinging contest it responded by showing just how much bigger its **** was then that of the Arabs. Which in attempting to restore the idea of dignity and a common humanity in a person was perhaps not the wisest choice of actions.
But frankly no one gave a ****, right? The US industrial complex, which as your real economy becomes a fossil, is the only one that truly profited from this. I mean Halliburton and its budget concerns compromise the very safety of those brave soldiers in the conflict.
And as traditional industry looks to fall by the roadside more and more the reality of this over inflated beast will become more and more naked.

As for Obama being ridiculous, I do not like the man and would vote McCain, but his actions would have certainly made America and its citizens safer and would be far superior to anything that chimp has done.

ps read this
"This is a new kind of war, new in it's intensity, ancient in it's origin...war by guerillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by exhausting the enemy insted of engaging him". "It requires....in those situations where we encounter it...a new kind of stategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore, a new and wholly different kind of awareness and training."

[leaferguy]

Originally Posted by Timberwoof

And explain to me exactly what Bush's war in Iraq has to do with terrorism. Never mind; you've never been able to come up with a good answer for that question, and you never will.

It's in the Middle East. That's near Terrorism, right?

</sarcasm>

(Can someone find my open sarcasm tag?)

Also, I agree that the requisite polar approach we take to solving world issues must stop. Sometimes you can be in the same town without living on opposite sides.

[Lars]

Originally Posted by Timberwoof

What was that you were saying about racism?

Timby du du, you make me laugh on occasion.

But Black Sambo is a book from the late 1800s early 1900's.

[Steve L]

Originally Posted by Lars

Timby du du, you make me laugh on occasion.

But Black Sambo is a book from the late 1800s early 1900's.

Just to let you know, in the US, the name Sambo, and the character of Little Black Sambo are considered as highly racist, stereoptyped representations of black people. There was a long operated restaraunt chain out here called "Sambo's" that was first forced to change its name, then went out of business because they couldn't shake the image of being a racist business (which they historitcally were not).

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by Steve L

Just to let you know, in the US, the name Sambo, and the character of Little Black Sambo are considered as highly racist, stereoptyped representations of black people. There was a long operated restaraunt chain out here called "Sambo's" that was first forced to change its name, then went out of business because they couldn't shake the image of being a racist business (which they historitcally were not).

"Sambo's" was also very popular in New England, and it's theme was based upon the book (tigers turning into butter etc.).

I believe that they ceased operations during the mid 60's.

The one that I remember from my youth became an IHOP..................

DS Sambo's is a restaurant, formerly an American restaurant chain, started in 1957 by Sam Battistone and Newell Bohnett. Though the name was taken from portions of the names of its founders, the chain soon found itself associated with The Story of Little Black Sambo. Battistone and Bohnett capitalized on the coincidence by decorating the walls of the restaurants with scenes from the book, including a dark-skinned boy and tigers. By the early 1970s, the illustrations depicted a light-skinned boy wearing a jeweled Indian-style turban with the tigers. A kids club, Sambo's Tiger Tamers (later called the Tiger Club), promoted the chain's family image.

By 1979, Sambo's had 1,200 outlets in 47 U.S. states. However in the late seventies controversy over the chain's name drew protests and lawsuits in communities that viewed the term Sambo as a pejorative towards African-Americans, particularly in Northeast states. Several of the restaurants were opened as or renamed to "The Jolly Tiger" in locations where the local community passed resolutions forbidding the use of the original name or refused to grant the chain permits. In March of 1981, in a further attempt to give the chain a new image the company again renamed some locations, this time to "No Place Like Sam's". By November of 1981, the company filed for bankruptcy. Neither the name change nor bankrupty protection reversed the downward trend, and in 1982 all but the original Sambo's at 216 West Cabrillo Boulevard in Santa Barbara, California, closed their doors.

In its last days as a chain, Sambo's was sued by Dr Pepper for plagiarizing the latter's popular television commercial in a spot Sambo's ran to promote its new senior citizen discount program. Sambo's was also sued by non-white employees and applicants who were alleging discrimination in hiring and advancement.

Battistone's grandson, restaurateur Chad Stevens, owns the only remaining Sambo's. He expresses a desire to revive the chain.

There is a "Lil' Sambo's" restaurant in Lincoln City, Oregon, but it was never part of the Sambo's chain.

Battistone is also the original owner of the New Orleans Jazz in the NBA. He later moved the team to Utah and sold it.

[Steve L]

Originally Posted by Thumper

"Sambo's" was also very popular in New England, and it's theme was based upon the book (tigers turning into butter etc.).

I believe that they ceased operations during the mid 60's.

The one that I remember from my youth became an IHOP..................

They were open here in California until the early 90s