Log in

View Full Version : The U.S. is now more unpopular in the Arab world than under Bush.



CynicalIdealist
16th July 2011, 00:34
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/13/arabs

Ocean Seal
16th July 2011, 00:40
But, but Obama isn't another Bush. Just look at how he didn't start any new conflicts (*cough Libya *cough). But wait he just did it to protect civilians *cough* in Tripoli *cough*. I mean the Arab world voted *and by Arab world, I mean the rulers which we chose to vote in the Arab world. Actually, since the Arab world doesn't trust him, does it still mean that's he's a Muslim Socialist from Kenya.

Invader Zim
16th July 2011, 19:09
But, but Obama isn't another Bush. Just look at how he didn't start any new conflicts (*cough Libya *cough). But wait he just did it to protect civilians *cough* in Tripoli *cough*. I mean the Arab world voted *and by Arab world, I mean the rulers which we chose to vote in the Arab world. Actually, since the Arab world doesn't trust him, does it still mean that's he's a Muslim Socialist from Kenya.

Obama didn't start another conflict, he provided perfunctory backing to a token gesture by the British and French governments, through a UN resolution, to prevent the destruction of the rebel uprising in Libya. He didn't "start" anything.

Ocean Seal
16th July 2011, 19:24
Obama didn't start another conflict, he provided perfunctory backing to a token gesture by the British and French governments, through a UN resolution, to prevent the destruction of the rebel uprising in Libya. He didn't "start" anything.
Oh I'm sorry, I guess I should just say that he cheered on his imperialist buddies with some airstrikes.

Tablo
16th July 2011, 19:24
Whether he started it or not, the US is providing the most troops and firepower of anyone in Libya.

agnixie
16th July 2011, 19:32
But, but Obama isn't another Bush. Just look at how he didn't start any new conflicts (*cough Libya *cough). But wait he just did it to protect civilians *cough* in Tripoli *cough*. I mean the Arab world voted *and by Arab world, I mean the rulers which we chose to vote in the Arab world. Actually, since the Arab world doesn't trust him, does it still mean that's he's a Muslim Socialist from Kenya.

The monomaniac obsession on Libya is getting trite - of course it has nothing to do with the fact that Mubarrak was a US ally, that Saudi Arabia, good friend of the US, is currently playing the role of Russia in Bahrein, and that Israel is essentially hardening its politics.

Hell, Gaddafi was acting as a good friend of the west until recently.

But no, it's really because the whole arab world is somehow particularly fond of His Majesty, the King of Africa.


Whether he started it or not, the US is providing the most troops and firepower of anyone in Libya.


France is actually providing more or less 35% of the firepower involved in the air.

Invader Zim
16th July 2011, 20:13
Oh I'm sorry, I guess I should just say that he cheered on his imperialist buddies with some airstrikes.

You were called spouting bullshit, and get over it.


Whether he started it or not, the US is providing the most troops and firepower of anyone in Libya.

What troops? A few special forces contingents? You do realise that there is no actual invasion, right? As for the US providing the bulk of the air power backing this resolution, care to provide a source or is that just an assumption?

Tablo
16th July 2011, 20:17
You were called spouting bullshit, and get over it.



What troops? A few special forces contingents? You do realise that there is no actual invasion, right? As for the US providing the bulk of the air power backing this resolution, care to provide a source or is that just an assumption?
The providing of troops includes those in battle ships and running bombing missions. I'm not saying there are men on the ground in Libya.

Invader Zim
16th July 2011, 20:34
The providing of troops includes those in battle ships and running bombing missions. I'm not saying there are men on the ground in Libya.

You don't get "troops" in battle ships or running bombing missions. When you use the word troops, it implies ground units. The word itself actually is a group of a cavalry commanded by a Captain - the equivelent of an infantry company. I note you haven't backed up your assertion that this campaign is American led numerically.

RichardAWilson
16th July 2011, 20:35
AmeriKKKa is still using imperialism to secure oil resources.... What's new? The British did it - the Dutch did it and now we're doing it. There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats in the Sphere of Imperialism. The Democrats can claim Vietnam (Johnson), the Korean War and European Imperialism (screwing the Germans and leading to Hitler - thank you Woodrow Wilson).

Invader Zim
16th July 2011, 20:36
(screwing the Germans and leading to Hitler - thank you Woodrow Wilson).

Please, never post again.