HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 39,405

Journal Archives

The one thing GOP candidates can't say will knock Trump out in first debate with a Democrat:

"You're an idiot. It's not just that you have bad ideas, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Running for office may SEEM like a reality TV show or professional wrestling, but actually governing requires some knowledge and, yes, even at least SOME experience doing it.

Running your own company where people have to obey your every whim or be fired is NOT the same as dealing Congress and foreign leaders who you can't fire if they disagree with you.

You're fun to watch on TV in an "Ow my balls!" kind of way, but you running for president is like a dog chasing a car--if you won you wouldn't know what the fuck to do."

The problem is, it will ONLY work if done this bluntly.

If the Democratic nominee is at all polite or wishy washy about it, it will have no effect on Trump or more importantly, people who don't follow issues and have limited reasoning ability.

Our person MUST come across as an authority putting a spoiled five year old asking to drive the car in his place or it will fail.

Should Debbie Wasserman Schultz resign as DNC chair?

It's been pretty obvious her thumb was on the scale for Hillary from the start, but that computer kerfuffle last weekend was dropping a house on the scale.

Progressive voters are the base of the Democratic Party, but we haven't had a progressive chair since Howard Dean.

We need someone in that position who more than just the fat cat donors can trust.

Should Debbie Wasserman Schultz resign?

Will few primary debates at low viewership times hurt nominee in November?

definition of socialism: admitting the government does some things better than the private sector

I realize that's setting a pretty low bar, but no Republican would directly admit that, and corporate Democrats would dance around it and try not to say it directly.

Why didn't Obama mention punishing those who profit from ISIS oil smuggling or states who fund them?

Dropping bombs is viscerally satisfying, but if you cut off their flow of money, their "threat" will quickly be reduced to that of a homeless guy with a plastic spork.

SOLUTION : Redskins should change their name to human skins

That way its not racist but they still have the same idea in there

The Saudi Connection to ISIS Terror

There are more important points in here than can be summed up in four paragraphs.

Besides the public admissions of our government officials of Saudi support for ISIS and just about every other Sunni terrorist group excerpted below, the article goes through the math on ISIS means of support other than from outside governments. It doesn't add up.

What this article treads on a bit lightly though is that ISIS is advancing our government's agenda in Syria by destabilizing Assad. And Washington didn't seem too worried about ISIS's bad acts when they were only in Syria and not yet in Iraq.

Also, any handwringing in Washington about ISIS atrocities is hardly sincere while we still arm and protect Saudi, the most oppressive, religious extremist regime in the world.

In a 2009 diplomatic memo made public by Wikileaks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

(On Thursday, in a hawkish speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton, now the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, focused on her plan for military escalation, including a U.S. invasion of Syria to “impose no-fly zones” and secure what she called a “safe area.” But she added a brief and exasperated reference to the financial reality, saying: “once and for all, the Saudis, the Qataris and others need to stop their citizens from directly funding extremist organizations as well as the schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path to radicalization.”)

–Vice President Joe Biden’s remarkable admission at Harvard’s Kennedy School in October 2014 that “the Saudis, the emirates, etc. … were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war … [that] they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad – except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda.

–Finally, in a front-page article on Friday, the Times belatedly acknowledged the devastating DIA report, a mere six months after it was made public by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. But even then, reporter Ian Fisher managed to leave out the most important part, which is that the Salafist stronghold that the Sunnis were seeking to establish is “exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition” – i.e. the West, the Gulf states, and Turkey – “want in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”


Links supporting article at original

To Defeat ISIS, We Must Call Both Western and Muslim Leaders to Account

A Moroccan author remembers growing up without religious extremism, and what changed that.

We must call to account the governments of the United States, France, Britain, Russia, Iran, and many others, who lent support and succor to tyrant after tyrant in the Middle East and North Africa, and whose interventions appear to create 10 terrorists for every one they kill.

We must call to account George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, whose disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent disbanding of the Iraqi army destabilized the entire region.

Wahhabi ideas have spread throughout the region not because they have any merit—but because they are well funded.
We must call to account the Saudi kings—Salman, Abdullah, and Fahd—whose funding of Wahhabi doctrine gave rise to the scourge of Islamic extremism.

When I was a child in Morocco, no clerics told me what to do, what to read or not read, what to believe, what to wear. And if they did, I was free not to listen. Faith was more than its conspicuous manifestations. But things began to change in the 1980s. It was the height of the Cold War and Arab tyrants saw an opportunity: They could hold on to power indefinitely by repressing the dissidents in their midst—most of them secular leftists—and by encouraging the religious right wing, with tacit or overt approval from the United States and other Western allies. Into the void created by the decimation of the Arab world’s secular left, the Wahhabis stepped in, with almost unlimited financial resources. Wahhabi ideas spread throughout the region not because they have any merit—they don’t—but because they were and remain well funded. We cannot defeat ISIS without defeating the Wahhabi theology that birthed it. And to do so would require spending as much effort and money in defending liberal ideas.


Our government can't use groups like ISIS one day and bemoan attacks on Westerners the next

The real scandal is our bipartisan policy of using groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, and any other religious extremists who dislike the same governments our government does.

ISIS didn't seem to move from our friends to enemies list until they started to bedevil Iraq as well as Syria.

Washington didn't seem to mind the religious extremist in Libya when they were after Khadaffi, but only only noticed they're bad guys when they killed our diplomats.

The same is true of our allies in Afghanistan. Our troops are rightly horrified that some of them practice child sex slavery, but our government doesn't care as long as they are on our side.

We should certainly find and punish (however you want to interpret that) whoever did this Paris attack, but the long term response should be to stop using these guys and telling our Gulf allies like the Saudis to stop funding, training, and directing them as well.

I won't hold my breath for that happening no matter which of the two parties enter the White House.

Ex-CIA director: White House ignored months of warnings about 9/11 to avoid leaving ‘paper trail’ of

Source: Raw Story

In an explosive revelation during an interview with Politico, the former CIA director during President George W. Bush’s administration claims his department informed White house officials over impending Al Qaeda attacks months before the president received the infamous “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” presidential briefing.


Beginning in May of 2001, Tenet and Black launched an initiative called “the Blue Sky paper” and pitched it to Bush’s national security team. The CIA called for a joint CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat by “getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.”

According to Tenet, the Bush administration said they wanted to back-burner the plan.

“And the word back,” claims Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking,’” meaning they didn’t want a paper trail.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/ex-cia-director-bush-ignored-months-of-warnings-about-911-to-avoid-leaving-paper-trail-of-culpability/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rawstory

Why do Democrats leave it to Donald Trump to bring this stuff into the political debate?

Republicans will get away with calling Democrats wimps, and the only response will be the Hillary variety of "I like to kill people too!" instead of calling bullshit on Republicans as incompetent or worse.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »