Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Libyan Strongman Qaddafi Weighs In on American Presidential Race
"I've seen that in America, a candidate who wants people to vote for him keeps talking about change," Qaddafi said earlier this week in a televised address on Libyan TV, an obvious reference to Barack Obama.
Qaddafi offered up Libya as a model for "change," predicting that "the whole world will return to the model of the republic of the masses, to communes, to popular security, to popular defense, to popular capitalism, and to popular socialism.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1703.htm" Click here to watch Qaddafi's speech.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,335993,00.html
Libyan Strongman Qaddafi Weighs In on American Presidential Race, Citing Democratic Call for 'Change' - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News
It does sound like the Lybian model is much like the America Obama would like to see. So the endorsement seems to fit very well.
Like Hitler and Qaddafi, Reagan offered 'change' too. Do you think they are the same? Of course not.
If you can't take the time to listen and read about Qaddafi 'change', Reagan 'change' and Obama 'change' then you will confuse them as the same and won't be able to tell the difference.
While at the same time, McCain endorsed by pastors calling catholics 'whores' Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1393 - broken link) he has been endorsed by pastor who say that U.S was created inorder to wage a war aganist muslims(surprise! surpris! we forgot that add that thing in the constitution) McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam
McCain of course doesn't agree with them and to imply that McCain agrees with them is simply stupid. My only problem with McCain is Iraq war(otherwise I would have voted for him) unlike the conservative---who just hate McCain because he is not 'conservative enough' like them(meaning he should become more like the pastors and bigots making these comments).
Obama doesn't ask for endorsment for anyone of these nuts and he doesn't want the support of racist like (farakhan type) and he has rejected it. McCain of course hasn't rejected the support of these pastor and can't denounce them directly. I understand it and don't hold these facts aganist Mccain----he needs nutslike these pastors to win the election and then he will ignore them. You can't win the general election without kissing these religious nuts in the republican party. Its a sad fact. Is Goldwater crying now?
Last edited by jessica1000; 03-14-2008 at 06:04 PM..
Now what american would actually want any evil african dictator's opinion on our election lol? Africans should get thier own continent in order before they start to stress over our government considering we are so much more advanced than them.
Like Hitler and Qaddafi, Reagan offered 'change' too.
Reagan's change was making sure Iran knew they would be hit as soon as Reagan took office. That's why within the HOUR of being sworn in, the hostages were freed.
Carter was a weak, pacifist, foreign policy dove. Our enemies knew that, just as they know that Obama&Clinton are cut from the same cloth. That's why they would like to see a democrat in office.
With "W" and Reagan, you had/have two no-nonsense, strong foreign policy (against our enemies), not afraid to take action.
As somebody said just recently, the terrorists will be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected.
sanrene
Member
Reagan's change was making sure Iran knew they would be hit as soon as Reagan took office. That's why within the HOUR of being sworn in, the hostages were freed.
So your logic is that the terrorist and terror states attack when we have a weak president and retreat when we have a strong president.
9/11---the largest terror attack happened under Bush adminstration. Is he then the most terrorist-favored-American President? Is he a weak President like Carter?
Carter was a weak, pacifist, foreign policy dove. Our enemies knew that, just as they know that Obama&Clinton are cut from the same cloth. That's why they would like to see a democrat in office.
With "W" and Reagan, you had/have two no-nonsense, strong foreign policy (against our enemies), not afraid to take action.
Why did Reagan sell weopons to Iran, which Iranian sent to terror groups to be used aganist us and our alllies. Is Reagan a traitor ? Reagan also withdraw after a marine bombing. What about that 'weak' policy.
So your logic is that the terrorist and terror states attack when we have a weak president and retreat when we have a strong president.
Yes. Ala Clinton throughout the 90's - we were attacked over and over again. Somalia being the most humiliating. All under Clinton.
Quote:
9/11---the largest terror attack happened under Bush adminstration. Is he then the most terrorist-favored-American President? Is he a weak President like Carter?
Must you be reminded that "W" was only in office 8 months when we were attacked on 9/11? The planning was years in the making. Even Osama himself, cites the PERCEIVED weakness (from the clinton nonaction) as a factor in attacking the U.S. That we wouldn't be able to stomach the conflict. All thanks to Bubba.
Yes. Ala Clinton throughout the 90's - we were attacked over and over again. Somalia being the most humiliating. All under Clinton.
Again, I don't go by the logic that we are attacked because the terrorist think our presidents are weak. You do and therefore this is more important to you then to me. Different terror groups attack because of different motives and not all of them believe in the same time. There is a huge different b/w hamas and Al-quaeda objectives.
Reagan's change was making sure Iran knew they would be hit as soon as Reagan took office. That's why within the HOUR of being sworn in, the hostages were freed.
Quote:
sanrene
Member
Must you be reminded that "W" was only in office 8 months when we were attacked on 9/11? The planning was years in the making. Even Osama himself, cites the PERCEIVED weakness (from the clinton nonaction) as a factor in attacking the U.S. That we wouldn't be able to stomach the conflict. All thanks to Bubba.
Must you be reminded that Reagan was only in office for a few hours and couldn't be the reason why Iranian freed our hostages? But you and conservative continue to say it without any logic. At the same time, you refuse to apply the same point to Bush and 9/11 attacks.
If ,according your logic, Iranian freed U.S hostages because they thought Reagan was a strong leader and they didn't freed the hostage during Carter presidency because carter was weak then the same logic should apply to Bush and Clinton. The terrorist launched smaller attack under Clinton(just like small terrorist attack happened under Reagan) but they launched the largest attack on american soil under Bush because they believed Bush is a weak president and a coward--like you believe Carter was during his time.
Again, I am not saying this because I believe this idea but only making this argument to show the flaw in your argument.
Must you be reminded that Reagan was only in office for a few hours and couldn't be the reason why Iranian freeded our hostages?
Oh, don't take my word for it. The Iranians admitted as much.
According to my logic, the terrorists had free rein under clinton to attack at will with no repercussions. Let me direct you to the tapes (with ABC I believe) of the interviews with Osama in the 90's. The fatwah declaration, how weak he thought the U.S. was. Why did he think these things? It's fairly simple - nothing happened to him or his followers after all the attacks he perpetrated on the U.S.
Somalia
Kenya/Tanzania (two) embassy bombings
1st World Trade Center
The Cole
Saudi Kyobar Towers
Again, 9/11 was years in the making - the clinton years. How could they know how "W" would react? They sure found out though, didn't they?
Again, 9/11 was years in the making - the clinton years. How could they know how "W" would react? They sure found out though, didn't they?
Again, according to you logic, they should have STOPPED their attack under a STRONG republican president. They made alll the preparation under 'weak' clinton but that doesn't mean they should have continued their attack. They only attacked and went ahead because they believed bush is a WEAK PRESIDENT. Right?
Reagan didn't solve the crisis in few hours. The terrorist in Iran let the american hostages go because they were afraid of Reagan. It was his STRONG presence in the white house---your logic--that made Iranian change their mind.
You logic-- Weak leaders(like clinton and carter) bring more terrorist attack. Strong Leaders(Reagan and bush?) force terrorist to retreat.
The same logic should apply to 9/11. The Terrorist group should have stopped their plansbecause we had a STRONG PRESIDENT LIKE BUSH in the white house.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
