Your URL does not even cite what you are quoting. More interesting are the topics in that URL.
•Obama Accountability Project
•Illegal Immigration
•Investigating Obamacare
•Exposing ACORN
•Financial Crisis/Fannie-Freddie Investigation
•Pelosi Air Force Scandal
•Joe the Plumber Lawsuit
•Judicial Nominations Project
•DOJ Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dismissal Investigation

Every one a hot button spin issue for right wing extremists. When do you quote patriots - also called moderates?

Mission Creep. We are not and should not be the worlds police force. Fuck them if they want to kill each other off.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6275441.story

Your wanting to believe something and have it actually be true are two different things. I can point you to a sci-fi series in which the author claims that the Yiddish word 'goy' translates to 'cattle', when in reality the word comes from the bible.

A lot of 'religious war' really had nothing to do with what is actually written in holy books. It had more to do with money, land, and power. Protestants v Catholics had a lot to do with Protestants claiming church land formerly owned by the Catholic church. The strife in Northern Ireland had almost nothing to do with religion but more to do with the political affiliations of majorities in each group and a perceived concentration of political and economic power in one group.

Is there anything explicit in the holy books of any major religion that denigrates another religion or justifies the persecution of other religions - no. Are there vague passages that can be twisted by those with an agenda and tied into cultural or political hatreds to achieve these goals - yes.

What I find twisted is that for propaganda purposes Muslim extremists are digging up myths about Jews that were started by European Christians centuries ago. Specifically blood libel, and I'm not talking about Sarah Palin.

I agree.

I just would not limit it to Muslim extremists. The anti-Muslim extremists in the US are guilty as well.

Where is Obama and the EU?

http://english.alarabiya.net/article...22/146329.html

Have you proven Gellar is wrong?

More on the killing of civilians in Syria.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/22/mo...d-in-syria-cen

Where are the drones?

The drones are busy watching Fox News.


Oh, those drones. They're bombing villages in Yemen and Pakistan.

The Syrian Government continues to kill it's citizens via it's troops. Where is the Obama Rescue plan? Why is Syria more important than Libya?

Why the hell would Obamy allow continued trade with Syria?

Forgive my curiosity, but why is America so convinced that they are responsible for "rescuing" other nations? We have seen the "rescues" done since 1870 or so (WWII and the Korean war as notable exceptions). It may not be obvious, but maybe not everyone wants your "help", also because that help always involves "provisional government".

The U.S. is not responsible for "rescuing other nations" on its own.

The U.S. as part of a broad coalition, with a mandate from the UN, can and should, under certain circumstances and on a limited basis, act to protect innocent civilians if it is believed it would not lead to greater harm or a worse outcome.

IMO, that is the case in Libya. A UN mandate, with the support of the Arab League, against a dictator that every other Arab leader would be happy to see deposed.

And not the case in Syria. There is no UN mandate and wont be because Russia, with its close ties to Syria, would veto. Syria also has close ties to Iran, Hamas in Gaza and Hezballah in Lebanon. The potential for greater harm or a worse outcome if the US, unilaterally or with a UN mandated, were to act militarily, is far more likely than in Libya. That greater harm or worse outcome being a response by Iran/Hamas/Hezballah against Israel, leading to a much greater threat of a larger war in the Middle East or an upsurge of terrorists actions in Europe and/or the US.

Obama extended Bush's trade sanctions against Syria last year that are still in place. They expire next month and would need to be extended again, which I presume will happen.

He could also freeze Syrian assets in the US, but would have little impact. Unlike Libya, Syria has few assets in the US.

This may very well be true, but this is not how it looks to the rest of the world. It looks more like America arranges coalitions, then wrecks a country, then hires "no bid" contractors to rebuild it with pieces of shit. You even electrocute your own soldiers in their barrack bathrooms, and have police stations with shit from the second floor plumbing coming out of the first floor light fixture, yes?

Or your marines find themselves guarding poppy fields, so that the heroin trade goes to the right warlord.

When America comes to "help", smart people pack up and leave home.

I agree completely with you about Iraq and the role of Halliburton and Blackwater.

I even agree with to some extent with Afghanistan and propping up the current corrupt regime.

Where I think the US can be most successful is along the model of Bosnia and now Libya, as part of a broad coalition and with a self-limiting role to protect civilians and/or support popular movements against oppressive governments but not to the extent of invading and occupying.

Bosnia is better, yes, but still had problems with American mercenaries, such as KB&R.

America would find more gratitude if they followed the French model from the revolutionary war; go in, take out the bad guy, and then leave immediately. It is when the nation being "helped" is subjected to "provisional governments" and "stabilization" that problems begin.