Is Hillary Clinton an Al-Qaeda Sympathizer?

[tcaudilllg]

It seems to me very interesting that Ms. Clinton has attacked Barak Obama for having the courage to suggest going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Even now Bin Laden is sitting confidently just beyond the Afghan border, in a region notorious for its corruption and lawlessness, waiting for his opportunity to take more innocent life.

I question Ms. Clinton's commitments to fighting terrorism. She seems to have respect for Bin Laden's ways, even if she sees them as threatening consensus. This is troubling for me, and I suspect, troubling for America and the West. Although I suspect she will win the next election, gains made by Al Qaeda will probably lead to her downfall in four years.

Oh, and Bill had better back off from the support of his "wife" unless she changes her tune.

[Slacker]

You are completely psychotic. Is there anyone you can talk to?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Barack Obama said something like 'if Pakistan doesn't cooperate, I won't give them aid, and we'll go in anyway and do as we please' - I don't think Obama is a neo-con (not so likely being a Democrat, but I don't know how these things work ), and I quite like him - I think Hiliary Clinton was a bit irritating to call him 'naive' etc. in this case - you wouldn't say that of George Bush if he said a similar thing. I really don't like what Obama said, but it doesn't really differ from American policy from the last century or so . (I think I'll forgive him this once - even though my opinion does not account for anything :wink: ).

[.thursday]

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...n_cw_v_cwn.php

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ers/index.html

[Not A Communist Shill]

Interesting articles - that kind of politics makes my head spin - no politician is whiter than white, and even 'honest' campaigns that reflect someone's family values, e.g. a wife and kids etc., is just spin - even if it wasn't, you wouldn't know .

[.thursday]

clinton is status quo with her warmongering (democrats trying VERY hard to appear 'tough on terror' right now - note passage of fisa authorization which is a HUGE ATTACK ON CIVIL LIBERTIES), obama is breaking mold by not endorsing perpetual war for resources/whatever, but endorsing attacking THE PEOPLE THAT ATTACKED US. its strange clinton won't say the same thing but she's using every opportunity to try to prove obama is too inexperienced to lead the country during this madness. i think her statements at this point tc are political, not her actual opinions. lik ehuckabee said on foxnews the other day, he can't afford to have a room full of consultants telling him what to say - but you can tell by watching the "top tier" candidates that they do and they are full of shit because of it. (except for obama?????)

[olduser]

i support the war(s) in the middle east. it's an unstable region with limited potential to organize itself, and it is in perpetual political, social, and economic crisis. Co-operation would be the best course of action for them.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't think there is anything particular wrong with politicians having consultants in this day and age - I don't think any politician could do without at least some. I don't see why people point out Obama's 'inexperience' as a flaw - if you said George Bush was 'experienced' politician, you mean he's run an oil company that did extremely badly at a time when oil was very profitable, and he has also been governor for a few years - the more trained a politician is, the more deceitful they are . I seriously doubt George Bush devises American policy in great detail - the advisers do that - even foreign policy is advised by god etc. etc.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think it was good to get rid of Saddam Hussein and the Taleban (at least if the alternative isn't worse) - but attacking Iraq (maybe not necessarily Afghanistan) should have been decided by the UN security council to give the decision some credibility - it might have actual made no difference, but more countries would have supported it, and it would have boded well for the future. I think there are worst dictators than SH though, which also challenged the legitimacy of the principle of going to war (for the general good, or whatever excuse is used now).

I don't know whether I would have supported the war if I had to make a decision at the time - I think it's more important to focus on the current situation as it stands, and do better in the future (not that I am likely to do anything). The U.S. in particular sees itself as some sort of law enforcer, but has messed up really bad sometimes - other countries may be worse, but they are led by dictators etc., whereas the U.S. seems to have a mindset of being an 'ultimate force for good', regardless of which president is in charge - there seems to be an unwillingnesses to acknowledge past mistakes, or to compromise with 'good' countries at the U.N. etc. . I think when you have democratic leaders, they are unwilling to attack the decisions of past leaders, in case it decreases their popularity rating - they are only concerned with the threats (or perceived threats of the moment) - so the U.S. (and the U.K. etc.) aren't 'evil' countries, but when you have people calling America 'The Great Satan', its likely to be impossible to make them see otherwise by continuing to do good through war .

I think the nature of Islamic extremists makes the situation more complex - attacking Serbia in order to save people is different from attacking Iraq, because in Serbia, the threat was localised with an end more clearly defined, and you were less likely to have extremists who weren't afraid to die. (I hope my post doesn't cause too much controversy ).

[Rocky]

i support the war(s) in the middle east. it's an unstable region with limited potential to organize itself, and it is in perpetual political, social, and economic crisis. Co-operation would be the best course of action for them.

This is true.

But it's not our job to fix it.





PS since when are we believing Bin Laden is even still ALIVE?

[.thursday]

i support the war(s) in the middle east. it's an unstable region with limited potential to organize itself, and it is in perpetual political, social, and economic crisis. Co-operation would be the best course of action for them.

why should we send our own to die so they can "get organized" ?

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think every country should take a fair share of the burden in intervening in other countries - though by what criteria an intervention is deemed necessary won't be accepted by all, and some countries won't want to help - I don't think that gives other countries an excuse to shirk out of facing up to their responsibilities. But it is difficult question to answer objectively if a country should intervene in the affairs of another. I hate diplomacy...makes my head swim .

[Creepy-bg]

i support the war(s) in the middle east. it's an unstable region with limited potential to organize itself, and it is in perpetual political, social, and economic crisis. Co-operation would be the best course of action for them.

why should we send our own to die so they can "get organized" ?

and who are we to decide whether or not they are or even need to be organized. That's their business.

[olduser]

because their governments are injust and the actions of the government are detrimental to the political, economic, and social stability of their region and within the individual nations. the benefits of stability are endless to citizens. The United States is a great nation when it comes to helping other countries stabilize and develop material interests.

[olduser]

i support the war(s) in the middle east. it's an unstable region with limited potential to organize itself, and it is in perpetual political, social, and economic crisis. Co-operation would be the best course of action for them.

why should we send our own to die so they can "get organized" ?

because we are noble and want to develop our interests and help them develop theirs. If you haven't noticed America is extremely successful(at some cost, of course) and these nations refuse to heed business rationality that isn't derived from religious texts and the consequent laws.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The United States is supposed to be more like 20th in the world in terms of giving 'proper' aid - the U.S. government claims to give a lot of aid, but most of it is 'phantom' aid, which means that the donor country wants the money paid back at extortionate rates of interest, typically.

See the charts (the column headed '%by GDP' in particular) on this page for the aid pledged for the great 2004 tsunami (this is from the reliable source of wikipedia, and is aid pledged, though not aid necessarily given):

[web:099a220bb8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_ear thquake[/web:099a220bb8]

I think the E.U. is trying to get E.U. countries to give 0.07% of their GDP in aid each year (doesn't sound like a lot to me , but I don't particularly give money to charity either).

[olduser]

developing business > humanitarian aid in a utilitarian sense.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Oh yeah - something like 98% of the Iraqi oil contracts are owned by the same five American oil companies that people in the George Bush's administration were predominately associated with (i.e. very little money for the Iraqi people, or even the everyday American person).

[Kim]

because their governments are injust and the actions of the government are detrimental to the political, economic, and social stability of their region and within the individual nations. the benefits of stability are endless to citizens. The United States is a great nation when it comes to helping other countries stabilize and develop material interests.

Do you have any success stories to report?

[force my hand]

Hillary is not an al-Qaeda sympathizer, but she is well aware of the fact that many (if not most) Americans do not differentiate between the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, and therefore, it's politically sensible for her to operate on that head. Obama knows that going into the Pashtun region makes tactical sense, and also that at this point in the conflict it's the best thing NATO could do for dismantling the Taliban, but I can't see how stating such is anything less than political suicide. Either he is stupid or he has tremendous balls. He's probably banking on Americans' smarts, but that's one hell of a gamble.

[Expat]

Just reminding everyone of the original reasoning --

It seems to me very interesting that Ms. Clinton has attacked Barak Obama for having the courage to suggest going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

-- She seems to have respect for Bin Laden's ways

She doesn't want to go into Pakistan to get him ---> therefore, she sympathizes with Al-Qaida and has respect for Bin Laden's ways.

Makes sense to me.

PS since when are we believing Bin Laden is even still ALIVE?

Do you have a good reason to think he isn't?

[Creepy-bg]

because their governments are injust and the actions of the government are detrimental to the political, economic, and social stability of their region and within the individual nations. the benefits of stability are endless to citizens. The United States is a great nation when it comes to helping other countries stabilize and develop material interests.

Do you have any success stories to report?

+2

[Slacker]

Just reminding everyone of the original reasoning --

It seems to me very interesting that Ms. Clinton has attacked Barak Obama for having the courage to suggest going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

-- She seems to have respect for Bin Laden's ways

She doesn't want to go into Pakistan to get him ---> therefore, she sympathizes with Al-Qaida and has respect for Bin Laden's ways.

Makes sense to me.

Thank you!

This is a really scary way of thinking. If you aren't with us, you're against us. If you don't agree with us 100%, you're a terrorist. If you don't want to invade Pakistan, you respect and are sympathetic to Bin Laden. That is crazy.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Oh yeah - something like 98% of the Iraqi oil contracts are owned by the same five American oil companies that people in the George Bush's administration were predominately associated with (i.e. very little money for the Iraqi people, or even the everyday American person).

some of that was probably inevitably cronyism. but have you also considered just how many large projects there are in redeveloping Iraq's vast oil reserves is? how many firms have the scale or scope to do much of that??

You make it seem that because Iraq has a lot of oil, it can only be run by a handful of large companies, when it could actually be run by many smaller Iraqi companies, who would have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart, know the Iraqi markets etc., and wouldn't in essence be a monopoly.

for another example consider how both iraqi GDP and GNP soared in 2005 when many of these projects went underway. gross domestic production could deceptively soar despite uncompensated "everyday" people because it just counts what's been produced "domestically" on Iraqi soil, regardless of if the recipient is actually Iraqi. but gross national production only counts what iraqi "nationals" receive. it wouldn't have gone up if no Iraqis benefited. (granted they hit a moderate recession the year after, but the 2005 growth figure was over 50%.) that's GDP though. i don't have the GNP figure memorized but it was very high too.

According to my Noam Chomsky book (which may admittedly be biased) the average median wage of an Iraqi was $255 in 2003 (a time when there was sanctions in force) to $144 in 2004 - what I believe you call a moderate recession, an economic collapse of a similar scale to the Great Depression. A 50% increase in GDP from 2004 to 2005 would still be short of the GDP under Saddam Hussein (Not that I particular liked him in the first place).

[Rocky]

tcaudilllg is what's wrong with the world.

[Not A Communist Shill]

ifmd95 - I think our problem is deciding where to draw the line, basically - and of course, we can never take statistics as purely fact - also, people never act the way you expect them to.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The Americans owning a large part of the Iraqi infrastructure is possibly part of the reason there is still widespread strife in the country - you can't prove that sort of thing easily with statistics, though I suppose you could poll some insurgents. 37% of the civilian casulties of the situation are being killed by coalition soldiers apparently, 36% by insurgents - though that is misleading, as statistics tend to be, because there are probably more coalition soldiers than insurgents, and the coalition are arguably doing more good than bad, compared to the insurgents (by 'good', I mean trying to support the elected government, though obviously that's a contentious point ).

[Creepy-bg]

if they don't like us owning their infrastructure they should have thought of that before going and forming a country over our oil.

[Not A Communist Shill]

if they don't like us owning their infrastructure they should have thought of that before forming a country over our oil.

It was those British idiots who put many diverse ethnic groups into one country and made a border which was basically a line in the sand - there was a joke on this satire programme that the only time the Iraqis were united was one they rose together to kill and throw out the royal family the British put in place . Still, where's the British share of the oil? They should get at least 10%.

[Creepy-bg]

if they don't like us owning their infrastructure they should have thought of that before forming a country over our oil.

It was those British idiots who put many diverse ethnic groups into one country and made a border which was basically a line in the sand - there was a joke on this satire programme that the only time the Iraqis were united was one they rose together to kill and throw out the royal family the British put in place . Still, where's the British share of the oil? They should get at least 10%.

we pay you by exporting our superior culture to your country :wink:

[Expat]

It was those British idiots who put many diverse ethnic groups into one country

Not just the Brits -- those countries (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and the future Israel) were put together by the Brits and the French with base on something called the Sykes-Picot agreement dividing the spoils of the Ottoman Empire after the latter's defeat in WWI.





There was the alternative proposal by T.E. Lawrence "of Arabia":

[Not A Communist Shill]

:wink: ^ That's very interesting.

[video width=300 height=0:b8f7583e60]http://media.imeem.com/m/ex6Z_MnDLk/aus=true[/video:b8f7583e60]

[Not A Communist Shill]

The U.S. is supposed to use or control 50% of the world's natural resources (i.e. raw materials) - 'they' then sell African countries BigMacs at great profit (compared to the cost of the raw resources, which tend to be bought cheaply from poor dictatorships), which makes the poor countries weaker, not stronger.

Those schemes where you give a family a goat, or some seeds, and then pass on some of the surplus production to other families have been shown to be a lot more effective at improving the economy and infrastructure - 'Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you will have fed him for a lifetime'.

[.thursday]

Hillary is not an al-Qaeda sympathizer, but she is well aware of the fact that many (if not most) Americans do not differentiate between the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, and therefore, it's politically sensible for her to operate on that head. Obama knows that going into the Pashtun region makes tactical sense, and also that at this point in the conflict it's the best thing NATO could do for dismantling the Taliban, but I can't see how stating such is anything less than political suicide. Either he is stupid or he has tremendous balls. He's probably banking on Americans' smarts, but that's one hell of a gamble.

do you think he can win the nomination?

[Quirk Satellite Div.]

The U.S. is supposed to use or control 50% of the world's natural resources (i.e. raw materials) - 'they' then sell African countries BigMacs at great profit (compared to the cost of the raw resources, which tend to be bought cheaply from poor dictatorships), which makes the poor countries weaker, not stronger.

Do tell what these resources are that the US imports from African dictatorships?

[Not A Communist Shill]

There are many African countries that make most of their money selling only one chief export, like basalt or wood, which leaves them quite vulnerable.

[Not A Communist Shill]

are they holding the africans at gunpoint and forcing them to buy big macs? is there a monopoly on cheeseburgers, and even if that is the case, are there not any other foodstuffs to substitute for cheeseburgers, such that the monopoly is significant? there are a lot of examples of multinational exploitation in the third world. curiously you choose a stupendously bad one.

They are given aid which they often have to pay with interest some time in the future - taking the money can be a life or death issue, paying the money back is not really a priority to them. Funny you mentions weapons...the west sells weaponry too indiscriminately to poor countries - often to both sides in a war - the U.K. in particular sells a large number of weapons to Africa .

There are cacao growers in Africa, many of them young children, who get paid lower and lower 'wages' to grow and harvest the cacao trees - they have to accept the price they are offered, because it is the big multinationals who own the trucks to transport the cacao pods to be turned into chocolate. On this programme, none of the growers had ever tasted chocolate, or could afford to do so. The multi-nationals just don't give a shit about the effect their exploitation has on these people.

By the time the cacao pods had got to market by truck, miles away from the plantations, the value of the cacao pods had increase by three times the amount the growers had got paid - even though they do all the work, and no further processing had been done on the pods during transport.

Short eight minute clip - I recommend seeing it, it's very good:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZy55XsYtIw[/youtube]

[Not A Communist Shill]

i think this is another "stupendously bad example." it seems to demonstrate that you don't understand the basic concepts of expected return and risk aversion. cocoa before transport is a riskier commodity to purchase ownership of, because of all that may happen to it before getting to market. and it's expected that on occasion something will happen to it here. transporation can be dangerous. once it's at market, there is less likelihood and risk of the commodity being destroyed or damaged. so cocoa in transport is a different product than cocoa in market.

no one is going to buy a risky smallcap stock for the same price as a safe government bond if they only have similar returns. risk itself is a liability, generally there must be an incentive (such as cheaper prices) for it to be worth taking as your own.

What, driving the crop up a road to market increases the value x3 because that's how much riskier it is compared to growing it?

[force my hand]

Hillary is not an al-Qaeda sympathizer, but she is well aware of the fact that many (if not most) Americans do not differentiate between the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, and therefore, it's politically sensible for her to operate on that head. Obama knows that going into the Pashtun region makes tactical sense, and also that at this point in the conflict it's the best thing NATO could do for dismantling the Taliban, but I can't see how stating such is anything less than political suicide. Either he is stupid or he has tremendous balls. He's probably banking on Americans' smarts, but that's one hell of a gamble.

do you think he can win the nomination?

Heh.

I can't decide between, "I haven't the faintest," and, "he'll be the next US president."