Wesley Clark quote.
 

To which I reply, "Where the hell have you been hiding?"

You don't call the rise of Islamofacism substantial? These people want you to shred the constitution and convert to their religion to live under islamic law or DIE.

That's pretty damned substantial, in my humble opinion.

As for where we lead them. Hmmm... Perhaps I can suggest a little light reading? Start with the Declaration. See how we applied it in the Constitution. For a bit of backround, you might try reading the Federalist Papers.

If after absorbing that you can't figure out where we should be leading the world, then I suggest you look for another line of work.

Wesley is a joke and he has basically dropped out of the scene as far as front running dems go.

Strongly disagree, I think he's one of the candidates at the front but that's just my opinion.

As to him making stupid comments, not to make this an excuse but every candidate and Bush himself make stupid remarks. I think that they just try to say something that is so confusing and makes so little sense that people will nod and think that they are smart for saying such things.

I really think it would be an improvement for politics all over the world if people would talk more clearly, because frankly I had to read that one a couple of time before it made sense.

What is the point of this thread? Is it a "lets debate whether wesley clark is a moron" thread? Because that seems rather trollish.
Maybe we could start a thread and quote all of the nonsensical things bush or clinton said and then just argue back and forth about who is the bigger moron, all the while proving that it is we who are the biggest morons.

I read this interview in Maxim magazine, he seems like a very bright guy, if a dem wins in '04 please let it be clark.

I would not mind having a former general as the commander in chief.

I might even vote for him in the primary....

Thats right I am a registered dem.

I'd like to see the context before I submit judgement on what appears to be a rhetorical question he was probably about to answer himself.

And if I don't get it, then I'll just start posting Bushisms... :p

he is more then a bright guy he is a genius


grauted form west point with honors

o yea and he is a gernal

I dunno, maybe if he'd said "Today there is no substantial challenge to American security." I'd agree that it was wrong - but I don't see Islamic fundamentalism as a challenge to American (let's say classical liberalism for arguments sake) ideals in the same way that things like Communism and fascism were.

It's not even in the same ideological ballpark. Osama is far from being some Lenin figure enticing the kids of america to a specific set of ideals. (aside from the occasional JW Lind nutjob). No American ideals are challenged if nobody in America is tempted to follow the alternative set of ideals. So it's NOT a stupid remark.

Islamofascism seems to be much more just a reactionary medieval throwback and a "spolier" ideology set up in opposition to the far more ideologically interesting secular pan-Arabism/Arab Nationalism.

Oh c'mon. He's not saying he has no clue or interest in leading mankind. That's an absurd interpretation. It's a mildly inspiring RHETORICAL QUESTION - like this one:

"Oh God, Kennedy's asking US if he can forge this alliance. He doesn't know if he can do it or not, I can't believe it. He's uncertain about the future and therefore incompetent. He should look for another line of work." :rolleyes:

One who wanted to fire on allied troops while in Kosovo.

The purpose of this thread is to allow readers to see that the top Democratic canditate fails to see the most present danger to Americans in the new centery thus far. Islamofacism IS the new communism, and has already killed 3000 Americans, disrupted our economy, and unless taken seriously, as Clark clearly doesnt as evidenced by his comments, will be just as bad as communism was.

Geez you sure can pick a bone with everything thats not in your political ballpark.

Seriously though, I think Clark can do a fine job, and as Macheath posted, its most likely a rhetorical question meant to inspire.

And yes, every politician says things that sound stupid regardless.

Pick a bone? Excuse me if I think failure to recongise the greatest threat to American lives as a big deal for a potential American President.

Thats your perception, as others have pointed out above, its not necessarily the same perception or the same thing he's trying to get at here.

I don't see why any form of arguing is needed here if its simply your perception, and not his.

Islamofascism?!!

Sheesh...

Let me guess? You watch Fox News a lot?


Mr Mephisto

Uh. You have to question anyone that doesn't take this testimonial seriously. ;)

ROFL

Yes, you know, those guys that killed 3000 Americans in New York a few years ago? Those same guys that took over a nation and beheaded and tortured anyone that did not conform to their belief system. The same ones that would have no problem with killing YOU if they could. Those Islamofascists.

That word sounds like some villains from a cartoon, makes me giggle. Now I don't like oppressing Nations building their beliefes on Islam either, but there are a good, much shorter and less cartoonish word for them already: Fanatics. The use of the word facism just seems misplaced. Killing people isn't all it takes to be labelled fascists. Fascism is an ideology of its own. Saddam based his power off a secular communist party, was he an islamocommunist? Did Khomeini create a corporate state? Religious dictatorships, fanatics. Those terms are more than good enough.

Why isn't clark talking about what will happen when the islamofascists team up with the feminazis and the Z.O.G.?

Terrorism is the greatest threat to american lives? I think not. Terrorism is only the most dramatic threat to the living. Smoking cigarettes is a greater threat to american life than OBL and his rough and tumble gang of misfits. According to imentalhealth.com 440,000 deaths are linked to the use of tobacco products annually. Considering estimates of the hiroshima death toll range between 42,000 and 130,000 it would take at least three or four equivalent size nuclear bombs being detonated in major metropolitan areas to equal the amount of people who are killed from cigarette smoke each year. Your "islamotastical" friends would have to have a pretty productive year to pull in numbers like that.

Do you honestly think that clark is whimisical and uncaring about terrorism? From 3 rhetorical sentences you can divine that clark doesn't recognize the importance of efforts to protect americans from terrorism? Yowsers! Maybe you should be a political analyst for cnn.

Cigarettes are a secret islamofascist communist weapon. So are SUV's and PCB's and fires in California.

Alright in all seriousness I agree with Mac Heath on this one. Islamic fundamentalism isn't quite the same as communism et al. It is a threat to our security maybe, but not a threat to our ideals. I don't see the majority of muslims jumping over to being fanatics. I used to be impressed with Wesley Clark until he decided to run. Its been one disappointment after another the way he has flip-flopped on things. He may still have a better run than some of the others.

Everything I wanted to say has been said, but I just had to weigh in on the "Islamofafascists". FEL, this is simply the dumbest, made up, political/propaganda term I have heard in quite a while. Thanks for the laugh.

NOTE: Using made up words seriously weakens your arguement.

They are muslim, and they are facists, hence islamofacists. Dont like the term, cool, but they still want you dead.

I guess I'm just a Christopacifist, or something. Don't like the term, cool, but I still don't want to kill you.

:lol:

Wooo boy some funny things have been said in this thread. And for the record, I guess I'm agnostobertarian.

Anyway, my addition to the thread: I also don't interpret terrorism ("islamofacism?"...*blech*) to be a great threat to American ideals or whatever. But I think the reverse might be true. Terrorist organisations probably feel that American ideals are threatening (hm... infringing might be a better word) certain "islamofacist" countries. Goddamit, I can't think of a different word to use besides "islamofacist" now. So anyway, my point is that this can be tossed in as one of the many reasons why terrorism is what it is today.

Just some food for thought...

We need to put more loaded words in here. What about "Islamocommienazifascist" or "paedophilerapisthitlerjugendmuslims"?

I like that last one but we should come up with a buzzword shortened version of it too. I like "paedo-lims". I'm sure it will test well with the focus groups.

:D

Actually Islamofascist isn't a bad description. Its a fascist like government run under the guise of Islamic law.

It also sounds 100% better then Fascousslim.

But the fact that they are islamic is irrelevant.

I guess the word Fascist being used is a bit strange too. Although many Islamic countries are led by dictators, they aren't really fascists. It takes more then lack of democratic strucutre to be fascist. The only reason the word fascist is added, is that it adds dramatic effect (omg fascist).

On the pre-islamofascistnazi-topic:


OMG he presented an interesting question regarding the future of American foreign policy. MORAN!

Why does everybody think 3000 is a lot of people? On the list of things that can kill you, the one that kills only a few thousand in the past decade seems to be pretty low. Just because your argument is weak, don't make up words.

3000 is about 3000 too many from an unprovoked terrorist attack. I don't think its the number as much as the event that has more significance for people. The outrage would be the same if it was 4000 or 5000 or 2000.

While I basicly agree with you, they still fit the book definition nicely.

probably, but don't tell me this is anything but another partisan play on loaded words.

So its our fault for having a successful culture that they are trying to kill us?

Thats correct cause the Hindofacists have made so many terrorist attacks agains us, as did the Buddofacists.

Hehehe, yes they want to kill you to steal your Big Macks and make their own hollywood films. The supposed hate agains the US is solely based on envy. I think you just summed up the entire situation.

Yes you are correct, 3000 murdered for the crime of going to work is no big deal. Lets just hug those misunderstood killers and see why they are so angry, I mean gosh darn it, we must have done something to deserve it, right?:rolleyes:

No they want to kill us cause we wont conform to their idea of religon and way of life. They are within their rights to hate us, even to wish us dead, but when they plot to kill Americans, Americans have the right to wipe them out. Just as if they plotted to kill Norwegiens, you guys can defend your self.

You norwegenoncidomaniacoliac!!!! :lol:

Well you may call me crazy, but I think there is a difference between defending yourself and, in your own terms, "wiping them out". I see that you have a very limited understading of the situation in the middle east. I recommend you read a few more newspapers and try to get a better grip on the situation. I don't calim to have a superb grasp on the situation myself, but I think it should be easy for any informed individual to discover more sides to the conflicts than "They hate us because they hate freedom and American lifestyle". It is a far too simplistic and flawed summarization of a very complicated situation.

I dont want to understand them, I want them to stop trying and ploting to kill me and my country men. I dont want to understand the criminal trying to mug me, i want him to stop mugging me. If you plan, or try to attack me, I will wipe you out. And any sane person should do the same.
And just so you know, Bin Laden wants us dead because we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia. How dare we defend a muslim nation from the very vocal threats of Saddam Huessien. He wants us dead cause we are the vanguard in democracy, that underminds his theocratic worldview. He wants us dead because he is smart enough to know that most people will prefer to live in a world where they can choose their destiney rather than have it choosen for them. He needs us dead so that he can continue to keep people in the dark as too their options in life.

Weird, as your arguements start to lose sense, your English skills decreases by the same level.
Edit: thank you for editing, it makes more sense grammatically now.
I think understanding your "enemy" might be key in any situation. You need to understand their motives, unless you really want to "wipe them out", I hardly think that will be possible. Your arguementation pose a great example of the blind rage and less-than-thought-out strategies that have characterized American foreign policies during the "war on terror".

Like I said, they are free to hate. Thats fine, thats their right, but when they take up arms against me or my country men, then as Maximus said, "Unleash Hell".

Do you actually think stopping to understand Bin Laden will actually get the same results as say, a bullet? Do you know what a fanatic means? It means suspending reason, strapping bombs to your body, or flying an airplane full of innocents into a building full of innocents.

I would like to see you try to understand a person with a bomb tied to his belly as he pulls the string in downtown Oslow. Its easy to say, when you are not the target, or have lost friends.

Did understanding stop the nazis? The communists? The imperial Japanese? Or guns?

Hey i have no problem taking out fanatics but wanting to kill all of them is only proving their point that you are the terrorist.

The worst thing IMO you can do is turn yourself into 'one of them' - then whose the better one now? Why not wipe out all Americans because there are a few who bomb others?

Either way this is pointless to argue because if a perception and viewpoint is someone elses, he's not going to be convinced unless its by himself.

If you just kill every terrorist you see, you'll only create more terrorists who are more pissed off. You have to stop the source and not just the man who is in charge at the moment.

No, killing the ones that are arming and planing to kill us. Those are the enemy. And at the same time, taking the fuel out of their fire by making Afganistan and IRaq successful, free, and good places to live. No one will want to take arms against America when they are working a good job, eating good food and watching some decent playboy channel. A well satisfied person doest not commit atrocities. We have to show the fanatics that the real reason their lives are shit, is their leaders. The ones that dont teach real information is the Madrasas, only chanting and misinformation. The same leaders that are halting progress, stealing money and forcing their populations to live in squalor while they have billions in bank accounts.
So ending this is two fold, war against the ones that wish to fight, till they realise that fighting is usless ( and that isnt going to happen when they hear the liberals badmouthing the conservatives that wish to take the fight to terrorists homes, Liberal talk is only showing Al Queda that Americans dont have the resolve to keep up the fight, and so it encourages them) and when the people see, in their livetimes and neighborhood that AMerica has improved their lot in life.
I am sure there were a lot of pissed of Japanese after ww2, but how many still hate America now? We waged a solid war there, pulled no punches, and then rebuilt the nation into a stable, safe place to live. A comfortable life puts out a lot of rage.

This to me is my biggest problem with the Bush administration. I feel they abandoned Afganistan instead of making that place a decent home to raise a family. Had that happened, when Al Queda came to recruit, they would be hard pressed to find a guy willing to strap on a bomb.

And with talk of pulling out of Iraq, will only bite us in the ass harder and longer in the long run. This is why i think that all the European nations that balked at helping or offering funds are scummy. They are letting their petty jealousy of the US pepper their long range vision. They say they want a peaceful world, then chip in and make it so. Jealously, and divisive talk wont make the world better, a peaceful world takes work. If you want it, do something for it.

This whole thread is silly since if Clark wins the nomination, all it shows is the democrats have lost their soul.

The guy has always had major ambition over substance, and wanted to be a Republican player, the Republicans say no (thank god), so now suddenly he isn't a Republican after all but a Democrat! And all that good stuff about the Republicans he said? Well he had a change of heart, yea thats it, he meant Afghanistan, not Iraq, yea that’s the ticket!

From what I also gather, he wanted to fire on Russian troops in Bosnia, when the Russian's decided they wanted to flex their muscle and take an airport we didn't want them to have. It was this little 'oops' that helped usher him out. I don't know if this is true, but based on some of his fellow generals reaction to the idea of Clark being president I wouldn't be surprised.

I could understand why he would appeal to some democrats, since he isn't a leftist, and has a military backround, but I don't think thats enough to get him the nomination which tends to be more party line.

On Clinton's nuts + Army General= Next best person to Dean.

Gogo Kerry in 04'!

After doing a little research, despite conflicting reports, I don't think Clark ordred anyone to attack the Russians and I think the British commander may have over reacted to Clark. He still has his skeletons, but at least I wouldn't put starting WWIII as one of them :)

I think the democratic and republican parties lost their souls a long time ago.

If they had souls to begin with.

Wesley Clark = Ostrich

I doubt they would attempt to kill me or attack my country.

How does AmeriCapaColonialists sound?

Sounds rather stupid, doesn't it? I rest my case.

You have a valid beef with terrorists and especially al-Queda. But don't try to justify the war on Iraq with the (so-called) war on terrorism, or paint all muslims with that brush. From your other posts you seem too intelligent to fall for that spin.

Mr Mephisto

Every American's sentiment prior to 9/11.

I have no doubt that if we were not engaging terrorists there, we would still be dealing with them here. Instead of hearing about a car bomb hitting a security outpost in Iraq, it would be a car bomb hitting an office complex in LA, or Detroit, or Atlanta.

So terrorists didnt kill any Austrians in say, a huge bombing?

americafascist.

We aren't wiping them out, we are running around like fools making enemies! (Which was OBL's plan..)

We aren't making any new enemies...

Well if you say so.

Wesleyclarkorepublicratliberofascist2004notachance-o

Austrians?

What on Earth are you talking about?

If you mean Australians, then I fully accept this country is a target due to its rash engagement in the Iraq war.

But I'm Irish. I seriously doubt Ireland is a high-profile, top priority target for Islamic terrorists. What with us being neutral and all...

Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto do you remember Bali? 100 Australian tourists died. That was almost a year before the war in Iraq (If memory serves).

Don't forget that Christofacists have perpetrated more attacks on the US (domesticaly) than any other group.

Did you actually read my post?

Let me spell it out for you.

I _ A-M _ N-O-T _ A-U-S-T-R-A-L-I-A-N

Sheesh...

Also, I said in my post that Australia is a target. What is it with you people?!


Mr Mephisto

Calm down, I think he was just making assumptions from the "location" part of your avatar...

I wasn't making any assumptions I was pointing out that not only are Australians a target, they had an attack perpetrated against them.

<img src="http://www.xenus.com/postcard/graphics/chatty/stpatrick03.gif">

ROFL

Re: Wesley Clark quote.
 

That is incredibly ignorant. Anti-American terrorism by radical Islamic groups has nothing to do with our constitution or our freedom of religion. It has everything to do with perceived enmity due to our alliance with Israel, and our support of monarchical regimes in the middle east.

Before you flame me, I'm absolutely neither agreeing with their reasons nor endorsing their means. But I can't believe that people go around thinking that "convert or die" has anything at all to do with it. Religion itself is irrelevant, the battle is over politics; the only significance of religion is that it allows terrorist leaders to easily recruit followers with the promise of paradise.

Re: Re: Wesley Clark quote.
 

Pretty solid summary hiredgun, but you neglect the Wahabism. Its the radical branch of Islam that is state endorsed by Saudi Arabia, it was the movement that gave birth to OBL. Their message is basically convert or die, even to other muslims.

So, if we convert to Islam,eat our Big Mac's and make our Hollywood movies, we're OK??? Sort of simplistic, isn't it?

Besides, the Bali bombing had more to do with Australia interfering in East Timor than anything else.

And I still don't see what all this has to do with Wesley Clark's quote. To compare religious fanatics in the Middle East with the percieved threat from Communism during the fifties and sixties, still doesn't tell me anything about Wesley Clark.

Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark quote.
 

Even Osama Bin Laden doesn't care about converting us. His goals are political as well. He talks about it in his "letter to America".

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...845725,00.html

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark quote.
 

From the link:





Did you miss this part of the letter? Obviously it isn't the only thing he cares about. But that is part of it.

The problem isn't that its just Islamic fanatics, or just America's interferance in the area, its both and more. It's not any one thing.. or two things.. its a whole mess of different problems for each little front or group. They all have their own cause that they feel is worth killing for. Be it supporting a leader like saddam.. or forcing their religion upon you.. or just simply getting pissed off that you get to see their women's ankles. They think that gives them the right to kill you, your family, your neighbor.. blow up that school down the street.

America is slowly wiping out the way of life in that area (be that a "good thing" or a "bad thing"). Our culture is starting to sweep through that area... politics.. religions.. clothing etc. That is a major problem as well for a lot of people.

Helping out any political regime will also have any opposing political group pissed off. Its like that everywhere - it's just common sense. The problem is that the whole area is just so pissed off that you can't really help ANYONE there without 10 other groups of people that now want to kill you.

Bombing the area every 5 years or so doesn't help the matter either.

Sitting and let them kill us doesnt help us either, it only helps them.

You never know.. it may help us.