Why Nobama

[Ragoczy]

There's a lot of stuff floating around out there about Obama either being a Muslim or being tied to Muslims -- neither of which I'd particularly have a problem with -- but the "being" has no evidence to back it up and the "ties" are fairly circumstantial. The "my Muslim faith" comment is reasonably explained by a simple slip of the tongue -- common on a long campaign; he was, after all, talking about Muslim and

Christian at the same time, and it's common for people to make a slip like that. I think if there really was something there, then the mainstream media, "tingly feelings down their legs when he talks" and all, wouldn't ignore it. It's possible to make a lot of connections and suppositions when viewing the entirety of someone's life, especially when they and their family have traveled as widely as Obama has. A friend of ours forwarded an email alleging that Obama's father is only very little Black, and primarily of Arab descent. I have to admit that this, coupled with Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate, makes me wonder a bit -- and curious to what the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton reaction would be if it were found that America's first "Black" President's birth certificate listed only Caucasian and Arab parentage.

But, if true, should all of that make a difference to us? I'd argue that if he is Muslim, it speak ill of anyone who refused to vote for him solely for that reason. What we have to remember, and possibly keep harshly reminding ourselves in these times, is that we are not at war with the Muslim faith or Muslims in general. We are in a battle against isolated, radical sects within Islam that hate us (the free, secular West) -- and even within that group that hates us, we're only really at war with those relatively few who want to kill us and actively try.

When we object to Muslims in general or hold their faith against them, we (Americans) are violating one of the fundamental precepts of our country's founding. We may legitimately object to them trying to impose those beliefs on others or when thier practice infringes on the rights of others, but simply having a different faith shouldn't bar one from public office so long as first in the execution of that office is held the nation's fundamental precepts.

Keith Ellison is the first Muslim to be elected to Congress and there was a certain, small but vocal, segment of the population that objected to his being sworn in on the Quran, fools; in my opinion, since forcing a Muslim to swear an oath on the Bible seems self-defeating if you want him to actually feel bound by that oath.

Personaly, I find enough to object to about Obama without supposition about his faith. And less than a year ago I was seriously considering voting for him -- my reason being that the damage of his policies might be light enough to be offset by the benefit to race-relations in having a Black President. But upon looking into his actual positions and actions, I found too much I object to.

In policy, I fundamentally disagree with most of his positions.

His proposed increases in entitlement programs will effectively double what's being spent on Social Security and Medicare -- and we know how well they've worked out. Socialized medicine doesn't work anywhere that it's been tried -- primarily because government is only good at two things: killing people and blowing things up, everything else they fuck up beyond recognition, and neither of those two things is conducive to quality health care.

His tax policies are confiscatory. The tax power of government is to pay for government services not social "fairness". He actually admits that his tax policy would lower revenue to the government (raising capital gains) and potentially harm the economy -- but he wants to do it anyway in the name of "fairness".

Regardless of one's stance on whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, we're there -- and his stated willingness to abandon twenty-five million people to terrorists and sectarian violence, I find reprehensible. Even if you think the mess is all our fault, doesn't that mean we should try to help the Iraqis clean it up? Even a vacuum

In the midst of this financial idiocy, I think it's ridiculous to even consider making President someone who managed to take more money from two of the biggest offenders in just three years than anyone else did in twenty (save Chris Dodd, who's still number one).

I object to his cordial associations with Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. The company we keep says something about us and if someone I knew, personally or professionally, was a terrorist, proud of it, and only regretted he hadn't blown more shit up, I'd have nothing more to do with him and I'd publicly excoriate him.

I could go on further, but my point is: there are plenty of proven, documented reasons to oppose Obama without resorting to supposition.

[damyanti]

Regardless of one's stance on whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, we're there -- and his stated willingness to abandon twenty-five million people to terrorists and sectarian violence, I find reprehensible. Even if you think the mess is all our fault, doesn't that mean we should try to help the Iraqis clean it up? Even a vacuum

Oh goody Americans who screwed it up are now going to clean it up. If? You invaded the wrong country, your establishment fabricated evidance and when one claim after another was prooven false, you simply made up another.

Its this superiority attitude and arrogance, which we have no idea where you derive it from, that breeds anti-american contempt. Your country is two hundred years old. Iraq, historically known as Mesopotamia, has been here since the start of the civilization, we are talking thousands of years. My country was founded in the seventh century. What gives you the right to meddle into our business? What gives you the right to tell us how to live?

I do believe Ragoczy that you are a noble man, one with values and that your attentions are good. But I have a first hand experiance where US presence prolonged the war unnecessarily and murkied things up. Its their land, you invaded it with no justifiable cause and you are continuing that occupation against their will. Sectarian violence? Again, its none of your business, its up to them to either learn to coexist or fight it out. You cant stop that, and as long as you are there terrorists will prosper.

[Ragoczy]

Oh goody Americans who screwed it up are now going to clean it up. If? You invaded the wrong country, your establishment fabricated evidance and when one claim after another was prooven false, you simply made up another.

Its this superiority attitude and arrogance, which we have no idea where you derive it from, that breeds anti-american contempt. Your country is two hundred years old. Iraq, historically known as Mesopotamia, has been here since the start of the civilization, we are talking thousands of years. My country was founded in the seventh century. What gives you the right to meddle into our business? What gives you the right to tell us how to live?

I do believe Ragoczy that you are a noble man, one with values and that your attentions are good. But I have a first hand experiance where US presence prolonged the war unnecessarily and murkied things up. Its their land, you invaded it with no justifiable cause and you are continuing that occupation against their will. Sectarian violence? Again, its none of your business, its up to them to either learn to coexist or fight it out. You cant stop that, and as long as you are there terrorists will prosper.

My reason for supporting the ouster of Hussein was simple:

The 2001 Gulf War never ended, no cessation of hostilities was ever signed, only a ceasefire, the terms of which were not complied with. US Troops were already in the area, on and around the Iraq-Kuwait border and enforcing the no-fly zones. All of this was at the behest and agreement of the international community. However, there was no plan in place to ever end the situation and the historical precedent for this was undesirable: 50 years from now we'd have 50,000 US troops and three million land mines on the Iraq-Kuwait border "containing" Hussein's idiot son. Sound familiar? It should, because it's the current state of the Korean Peninsula.

So, yeah, I do think if we're going to be the ones faced with that likelihood, we should have the right to say "fuck that, we're going to end it now and get it over with".

And ultimately, no, Iraq has not been there since the start of civilization. Any number of geographical borders have come and gone in that region over the last millennia and the national entity known as "Iraq" is a leftover of an area granted to British control by the League of Nations and forged out of traditionally hostile groups. Short of dividing the country amongst those groups or the arrival of another dictator strong enough to terrorize them, I have doubts that they'll make it without a lot of sectarian bloodshed. But we are where we are today, and I think it's better for the US to stay until the Iraqi government feels comfortable than to just precipitously pull out. Leaving the Iraqi government unstable and not in control of the provinces would simply guarantee sectarian violence and bloodshed, while staying at least provides the possibility of avoiding it.