The First 100 Days

[Mr. Oragahn]

Hey! Look, More of the Same.

Well, with one change, if I have to be fair: he now has youth brigades.
With the help of Canadian and Mexican forces, and the rest of NATO countries, he can lead all of us into a nice quicksand, soon full of bone dust, uranium particles and red tinted.

[ILikeDeathNote]

Hey! Look, More of the Same.

Hey, look! Another ill-informed, uneducated opinion from the aging, 60's throwbacks, desperate-for-attention smatass dipwads from Salon.com!

Now I may be a regular reader of Wonkette and Gawker but I'd wish Salon.com would just go away.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Hey! Look, More of the Same.

Hey, look! Another ill-informed, uneducated opinion from the aging, 60's throwbacks, desperate-for-attention smatass dipwads from Salon.com!

Now I may be a regular reader of Wonkette and Gawker but I'd wish Salon.com would just go away.

Got arguments? That could be useful.

[PunkMaister]

Hey! Look, More of the Same.

Hey, look! Another ill-informed, uneducated opinion from the aging, 60's throwbacks, desperate-for-attention smatass dipwads from Salon.com!

Now I may be a regular reader of Wonkette and Gawker but I'd wish Salon.com would just go away.

Got arguments? That could be useful.

On that note what is Salon.com and what does it have to do with this?

[Mr. Oragahn]

It's a place for tea parties. :P

[PunkMaister]

It's a place for tea parties. :P

OK And it has to do with this thread... ...How? I'm sorry Mr O. unless whoever posted that intended it as a joke (and a lame one at that) it just does not compute!

[ILikeDeathNote]

Hey! Look, More of the Same.

Hey, look! Another ill-informed, uneducated opinion from the aging, 60's throwbacks, desperate-for-attention smatass dipwads from Salon.com!

Now I may be a regular reader of Wonkette and Gawker but I'd wish Salon.com would just go away.

Got arguments? That could be useful.

I could ask the same of you, because Salon.com has zero arguments, never had, and likely never will.

In the meantime I'll wait for you to post an article about Obama being "more of the same" from a website with commentators who chose to use actual sources rather than gut-feeling and rhetoric that most people left behind after the Nixon years.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Hey, look! Another ill-informed, uneducated opinion from the aging, 60's throwbacks, desperate-for-attention smatass dipwads from Salon.com!

Now I may be a regular reader of Wonkette and Gawker but I'd wish Salon.com would just go away.

Got arguments? That could be useful.

I could ask the same of you, because Salon.com has zero arguments, never had, and likely never will.

In the meantime I'll wait for you to post an article about Obama being "more of the same" from a website with commentators who chose to use actual sources rather than gut-feeling and rhetoric that most people left behind after the Nixon years.

Obviously you have not even bothered reading even a portion of the article.
There's an external source to a CNN article, for example, and points are structured.
What's going on from the moment there's some criticism aimed at Obama or something? Did you pour too much emotions into this guy's aura or what? cause you surely seem to have disconnected your sense of objective criticism and analysis relatively quickly here.
As for the rest of your hot air claims, let's look. There are EIGHT links to external sources, for a total of SEVEN external sources.

CNN
Juancole.com (x2)
BBC
Statesman.com
Jamestown Foundation
An AFP article
A study of World Public Opinion (dot org)

An reflections derived from this information. You may disagreeing, but lying about a source that is just one click away from your reading abilities is just ludicrous.

[ILikeDeathNote]

Got arguments? That could be useful.

I could ask the same of you, because Salon.com has zero arguments, never had, and likely never will.

In the meantime I'll wait for you to post an article about Obama being "more of the same" from a website with commentators who chose to use actual sources rather than gut-feeling and rhetoric that most people left behind after the Nixon years.

Obviously you have not even bothered reading even a portion of the article.
There's an external source to a CNN article, for example,

Whoopie-doo.

and points are structured.

No they're not. The article links to other articles but only to give a sense of false credibility. It does not build on the actual information from the articles linked, engages in wild speculation/extrapolation, is ridiculously biased, and is deeply rooted in the same type of ultra-leftist rhetoric that 60's throwbacks way too obsessed with "the system" are infamous for (well, military operations must be bad because, well, they kill people and they're just bad!)

The CNN article is no surprise because just about every war has been unpopular with the majority, even WWII. In fact I don't think any rational person would really say they're all up for sending people overseas to kill and get killed, but it's up to the state department, congress and the executive branch to decide which wars to fight as a part of foreign policy. It's a fact of life, deal with it. And all the article does is comment that it's hurting Obama's base - something that never hurt Wilson, FDR, JFK or LBJ.

Then there's this other article from a no-name website that says that "the Taliban are not the Taliban." So? It lists a BBC article stating that only 4% of Afgahns support the Taliban. So? Wouldn't you think something like that would hurt the Slate article position? The article lists a World Digest article that there are an estimated 15,000 Taliban near Kabul facing a force of 80,000. So?

I can go on and on and on, but it's basically just plastering loosely-related links in an attempt to build up credibility where none exists. It's quite similar to how some people debate here. The rest of the article is just loosely-formed opinion based on a mindset that got thrown out with the rest of the trash 40 years ago.

What's going on from the moment there's some criticism aimed at Obama or something? Did you pour too much emotions into this guy's aura or what?

I voted "terrible" in the poll. So yeah, I really love the guy >_>

cause you surely seem to have disconnected your sense of objective criticism and analysis relatively quickly here.

And yet you throw up an article that is based almost entirely on a knee-jerk hackneyed attempt at preserving some sense of 60s anti-government reactionism, from a website whose entire purpose is to perpetuate such an attitude.

Interesting, as these are the same people who cry against the "tea party" protests for being anti-government. They can't even make up their minds.

As for the rest of your hot air claims,

And the article's (and yours) isn't?

let's look.

Already did. Some of them are just no-name sites, so they'll (and you'll) have to do better than that.

An reflections derived from this information. You may disagreeing, but lying about a source that is just one click away from your reading abilities is just ludicrous.

How the hell did I lie?

[Mr. Oragahn]

and points are structured.

No they're not. The article links to other articles but only to give a sense of false credibility.

Bullshit. They have an opinion; that Obama's "domino theory" is flawed, and they used evidence to prove this, notably pointing out how the Talibans, and as a wing of Al-Qaeda, are nowhere near the danger they're made to be.
That's their main point. Pretending they don't have any is ignorant and stupid. It's all clear and laid down for anyone to read.

It does not build on the actual information from the articles linked,

It does. For example: the Afghans' own opinion about the Talibans.
It also refers to the victory against 60K Talibans with support of US air superiority, which I'm sure can be verified.

engages in wild speculation/extrapolation,

Their speculation is certainly not inferior to the one adopted by Obama's cabinet, following the Bushic trend.

is ridiculously biased,

Huh, because they happen to disagree with Obama's plan.
What a bias! I'm sorry but when you disagree, you disagree. There's nothing to do about it.

and is deeply rooted in the same type of ultra-leftist rhetoric that 60's throwbacks way too obsessed with "the system" are infamous for (well, military operations must be bad because, well, they kill people and they're just bad!)

Oh yeah? Despite pointing to the defeat of 60K Talibans by armed forces, just after pointing out an Afghan poll stating that the Talibans don't have the support of the majority of the Afghan population, and that other clans are fighting against Talibans, and never painting these clans as wrong in their doing...
I wonder if we read the same article, really.

The CNN article is no surprise because just about every war has been unpopular with the majority, even WWII.

So obviously since people are against wars and this is nothing new, it's meaningless to pay attention to public opinion!

Riiight. Not only the USA got into WWII (and Iraq) following a massive support at first, but you may want to remember Vietnam.

In fact I don't think any rational person would really say they're all up for sending people overseas to kill and get killed, but it's up to the state department, congress and the executive branch to decide which wars to fight as a part of foreign policy.

How many Americans suddenly enrolled after Pearl Harbour again?

It's a fact of life, deal with it. And all the article does is comment that it's hurting Obama's base - something that never hurt Wilson, FDR, JFK or LBJ.

The fact of life, dear ILikeDeathNote, is that these wars are supposedly fought for the interests of the Americans. Yet by the poll, the very same majority of Americans don't agree with the war solution (like if there's been any real big problem at first).
Obama is merely following Bush's 9/11 politics.

Then there's this other article from a no-name website that says that "the Taliban are not the Taliban." So?

Do everything need to be mashed so you can understand them?

The "no name" claim used to ignore the articles.

That you ignore his name is, frankly, meaningless, and certainly not a good argument to oppose information, observations, analyses and thoughts.

As stated on the pages, "Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute".

Who is Juan Cole?
Hop on wikipedia:

Juan Cole

John "Juan" Ricardo I. Cole (born October 1952 in Albuquerque, New Mexico) is an American scholar, historian of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history. He is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. As a commentator on Middle Eastern affairs, he has appeared in print and on television, and testified before the United States Senate. He has published several peer-reviewed books on the modern Middle East and is a translator of both Arabic and Persian. Since 2002, he has written a weblog, Informed Comment.

Background and education

Cole's father served in the United States Army Signal Corps and afterwards in the Satellite Corps and, when Cole was age two, his family left New Mexico for France. His father would complete two tours with the U.S. military in France (a total of seven years) and one 18-month stay at Kagnew Station in Asmara, Eritrea (then Ethiopia). (Cole reports that he first became interested in Islam in Eritrea, which has a population roughly half Christian and half Muslim.) Cole was schooled at a variety of locations, twelve schools in twelve years, at a series of dependent schools on military bases but also sometimes in civilian schools. Some schooling occurred in the United States, particularly in North Carolina and California.

Cole obtained his undergraduate degree at Northwestern University in 1975, having majored in History and Literature of Religions. For two quarters in his senior year he conducted a research project in Beirut and returned to the city as a graduate student in the fall of 1975, but the civil war prevented Cole from continuing his studies there. Therefore he pursued a Masters degree at the American University in Cairo in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, graduating in 1978. Cole then returned to Beirut for another year and worked as a translator for a newspaper. In 1979 Cole enrolled at the University of California, Los Angeles as a doctoral student in the field of Islamic Studies, graduating in 1984. After graduation, Cole was appointed Assistant Professor of History at the University of Michigan where he would become a full professor in 1995.

Cole became a member of the Bahá'í Faith in 1972 as an undergraduate at Northwestern, and the religion later became a focus of his academic research. He resigned from the Bahai Faith in 1996 after disputes with Bahá'í leadership concerning the Bahá'í system of administration.

Cole married the former Shahin Malik in Lahore in 1982. The couple has a son, Arman, born in 1987.



Appointments and awards

Cole was awarded Fulbright-Hays fellowships to India (1982) and to Egypt (1985-1986). From 1999 until 2004, Juan Cole was the editor of The International Journal of Middle East Studies. He has served in professional offices for the American Institute of Iranian Studies.[4] He was elected president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in November 2004.[5] In 2006, he received the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism administered by Hunter College.[6]

• 1975 B.A. History and Literature of Religions, Northwestern University
• 1978 M.A. Arabic Studies/History, American University in Cairo
• 1984 Ph.D. Islamic Studies, University of California Los Angeles
• 1984-1990 Assistant Professor of History, University of Michigan
• 1990-1995 Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan
• 1992-1995 Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan
• 1995- Professor of History, University of Michigan

So it would seem that this no name would actually know what he's talking about. The no name excuse, which you used against him and other sources which have nothing obscure, is just plain absurd.

Now, about Talibans are not Talibans... don't you get it?

The US and the average Joe knows shit about the region and think there are Talibans over there, it's Al Qaeda and that's all. It's an over simplification needed to sustain a war in public opinion.
When you scratch the surface, it's not so simple.

It lists a BBC article stating that only 4% of Afgahns support the Taliban. So?

How many Americans would actually be aware of this reality?

Wouldn't you think something like that would hurt the Slate article position? The article lists a World Digest article that there are an estimated 15,000 Taliban near Kabul facing a force of 80,000. So?

What?

I can go on and on and on, but it's basically just plastering loosely-related links in an attempt to build up credibility where none exists. It's quite similar to how some people debate here. The rest of the article is just loosely-formed opinion based on a mindset that got thrown out with the rest of the trash 40 years ago.

Your opinion. You were fine to disagree. Lying from an ignorant perspective, however, that retarded.

cause you surely seem to have disconnected your sense of objective criticism and analysis relatively quickly here.

And yet you throw up an article that is based almost entirely on a knee-jerk hackneyed attempt at preserving some sense of 60s anti-government reactionism, from a website whose entire purpose is to perpetuate such an attitude.

Oh the evil doers. Boo Salon. Just boo.
I love your idea that disagreement with the government's current and future course of action is deemed perhistoric, a reactionary knee-jerk stance that has no value and makes no sense.
This surely cannot be serious.

Interesting, as these are the same people who cry against the "tea party" protests for being anti-government. They can't even make up their minds.

Huh, regardless of their position on the tea party, who ever said they had to have a mono-mind?

[Mr. Oragahn]

And since I'm having too much fun with our new puppet semi-black boy, let's have even more of the same, again.
Perhaps with time, people will finally get it.

I hope.

[PunkMaister]

Hey! Look, More of the Same.

Well, with one change, if I have to be fair: he now has youth brigades.
With the help of Canadian and Mexican forces, and the rest of NATO countries, he can lead all of us into a nice quicksand, soon full of bone dust, uranium particles and red tinted.

Just what kind of a government then would you like to see in the US, one that capitulates to every Alqaida, terrorist or Somali pirate demand in the world? Isn't that what he is doing? Or would be better if the US just unconditionally surrenders to Bin Laden? I really cannot see where you want to go with this... And I do not like Obama one bit but for obviously very, very different reasons than you. So again what kind of a government the US could have that would please you?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Just what kind of a government then would you like to see in the US, one that capitulates to every Alqaida, terrorist or Somali pirate demand in the world?

AlQaeda's menace is overblown and is the offspring of the US's own international policies.
Somali pirates are just an excuse to bring an amazing amount of naval military assets in one place to control a most important region of Eastern Africa and the gate to the Red Sea, and perhaps more.

Or would be better if the US just unconditionally surrenders to Bin Laden?

Surrender what? When? To whom? The same Bin Laden, fabricated from scratch and powered by US funds, having countless ties with Bush, and the one who, considering his wealth, had the least interests in waging a war against the US? (A ridiculous concept...)
The same Bin Laden who got caught and died a gazillion times now?
The same Bin Laden seen on doctored videos, yet presented as proof that he was behind 9/11?
The same Bin Laden whom the media don't even speak about because he's not a credible scapegoat anymore?

I really cannot see where you want to go with this...

I understand how you can miss where I'm going with what you're saying.

And I do not like Obama one bit but for obviously very, very different reasons than you. So again what kind of a government the US could have that would please you?

One that is not a pawn of war criminals, banksters and the MIGC.
The same few people who don't give a shit about the lives of others beyond their own little interests, beliefs, money and power.

[PunkMaister]

AlQaeda's menace is overblown and is the offspring of the US's own international policies.
Somali pirates are just an excuse to bring an amazing amount of naval military assets in one place to control a most important region of Eastern Africa and the gate to the Red Sea, and perhaps more.

Ah let me guess the attacks and mass murdering of crews aboard cargo ships etc has all been orchestrated by the Jews who control the US government and most of the world right?

Surrender what? When? To whom? The same Bin Laden, fabricated from scratch and powered by US funds, having countless ties with Bush, and the one who, considering his wealth, had the least interests in waging a war against the US? (A ridiculous concept...)
The same Bin Laden who got caught and died a gazillion times now?
The same Bin Laden seen on doctored videos, yet presented as proof that he was behind 9/11?
The same Bin Laden whom the media don't even speak about because he's not a credible scapegoat anymore?

After reading all that I can almost imagine you wearing a Tinfoil hat but to recap I'll go point by point.

1. Again you claim that is all a fabrication my guess is by the Jews as they are the world's favorite scapegoats right now just as they were in 1930's and long before that it seems a systemic problem in the human condition but whatever...

2. The Bin Laden family has ties with the Bush family of that there is no doubt. But it does not imply that Usama himself is a friend of the Bushes or anyone in the US for that matter. He is an individual that made his choice to become a Radical Islamist long ago.


3. I don't where the hell you get the news because news of his death or capture never made the news in the major news networks or papers of the US neither nationwide nor locally. The last official whereabouts of him was Tora Bora and it was the closest the US came to kill him. And seriously what does health health have to do with anyone's political views and how they choose to act on them?

4. Why would the media talk about someone who has not made a single video or audio tape in ages now? They do jump all over it when one of either of those pop up for sure.

And for your information the US armed forces have never been good at capturing anyone they only captured Saddam because someone spilled the beans on his whereabouts otherwise they would still be looking for him. Look at the history. They went after Sitting Bull in the Indian wars and what happened? They never got him! In the end he turned himself in because he was already old and fed up. Then we have Pancho Villa who had the audacity of attacking border towns from across Mexico. The US sent troops to capture him and never got him as well.

But off course you will probably write this off as being all a historical farce again being all created by the Jews probably right?

I understand how you can miss where I'm going with what you're saying.

I know that with what you are saying you are truly beginning to sound like a conspiracy nut complete with Tinfoil hat and anti radiation pills...

One that is not a pawn of war criminals, banksters and the MIGC.
The same few people who don't give a shit about the lives of others beyond their own little interests, beliefs, money and power.

I have no idea what the MIGC stands for but I read is that you want a solid marxist/socialist regime in the US or something along those lines where they place all of us Evil Capitalists in their place.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Ah let me guess the attacks and mass murdering of crews aboard cargo ships etc has all been orchestrated by the Jews who control the US government and most of the world right?

Strawman.

After reading all that I can almost imagine you wearing a Tinfoil hat but to recap I'll go point by point.

1. Again you claim that is all a fabrication my guess is by the Jews as they are the world's favorite scapegoats right now just as they were in 1930's and long before that it seems a systemic problem in the human condition but whatever...

Strawman.

2. The Bin Laden family has ties with the Bush family of that there is no doubt. But it does not imply that Usama himself is a friend of the Bushes or anyone in the US for that matter. He is an individual that made his choice to become a Radical Islamist long ago.

He was above all a radical working with the CIA and even attending meetings in preparation to turmoil in Chechnya.
He was on FBI's list of most wanted since eons, well before 9/11, but was integrally supported in the shadows by several US governments.
You have probably also heard about Osama ending in some American hospital not long before 9/11, with American services knowing this, but letting him go nonetheless.

3. I don't where the hell you get the news because news of his death or capture never made the news in the major news networks or papers of the US neither nationwide nor locally. The last official whereabouts of him was Tora Bora and it was the closest the US came to kill him. And seriously what does health health have to do with anyone's political views and how they choose to act on them?

You don't have to go farther than your random search engine, type any combination of the following key words "Osama Laden captured killed murdered dead" to get the point.
It's more a problem of not knowing what to do about his case, officially.
He's stuff of legends now, in a way.

4. Why would the media talk about someone who has not made a single video or audio tape in ages now? They do jump all over it when one of either of those pop up for sure.

Because he's the evil mastermind behind 9/11, the reason for the ongoing Whore on Terror and so on? Isn't it just a bit obvious? But even the media are smart enough to know when to stop pulling the string before it snaps.

And for your information the US armed forces have never been good at capturing anyone they only captured Saddam because someone spilled the beans on his whereabouts otherwise they would still be looking for him. Look at the history. They went after Sitting Bull in the Indian wars and what happened? They never got him! In the end he turned himself in because he was already old and fed up. Then we have Pancho Villa who had the audacity of attacking border towns from across Mexico. The US sent troops to capture him and never got him as well.

But off course you will probably write this off as being all a historical farce again being all created by the Jews probably right?

Jews, Greys AND Shape Shifting Lizards.

Idiot.

I know that with what you are saying you are truly beginning to sound like a conspiracy nut complete with Tinfoil hat and anti radiation pills...

Idiot².

I have no idea what the MIGC stands for but I read is that you want a solid marxist/socialist regime in the US or something along those lines where they place all of us Evil Capitalists in their place.

No, you obviously have a very poor understanding of anything.
I don't support Obama's socialism, which is just a way to nationalize fraudulent banks, soak up their toxic shit with taxpayers' much patriotic efforts (of course!), and then resell their resources to private parties for another round.
I don't really care for now about who owns what, except about who owns the right to produce and control money in the best interests of the people, and what orbits this tool.
I for one can only totally support the American Monetary Act, and the Transparency in the Creation of Wealth Act.