Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama

[Nati Ice]

interesting shit


[url="http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308"]http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/ra...rt-obama-061308[/url]

[quote][size=5][b]
Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama[/b][/size]

[i]How do racists, anti-Semites and all-purpose hate-mongers view the possibility of America’s first black president? Not necessarily the way you think they would.[/i]

By David Peisner


If recent polls are to be believed, white voters favor John McCain over Barack Obama by nearly ten percentage points, but the McCain and Obama camps probably haven’t factored in the following fact: In an informal Esquire survey, three out of four white supremacists prefer Obama, while McCain is the clear favorite among black nationalists. (Sure, our methodology suffered from an extraordinarily low sample size -- limited to four white supremacists and one black nationalist -- but just because it wouldn’t fly with Gallup doesn’t mean there ain't a kernel of truth in there.) This is just one of many surprising views that emerged after we talked to extremists about this historic electoral showdown between a 46-year-old black man and a 71-year-old white man.
Tom Metzger

Who: Director, White Aryan Resistance

Likes: White people, karaoke, environmentalists

Dislikes: Race-mixing, Jews, the federal government, capitalism

Career Highlights: Was Grand Dragon of Ku Klux Klan in the 70s; won the Democratic primary during his bid for Congress in 1980; appeared on the episode of Geraldo Rivera’s show in 1988 when Rivera’s nose was broken in a brawl.

“The corporations are running things now, so it’s not going to make much difference who's in there, but McCain would be much worse. He’s a warmonger. He’s a scary, scary person -- more dangerous than Bush. Obama, according to his book, Dreams Of My Father, is a racist and I have no problem with black racists. I’ve got the quote right here: ‘I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s white race.’ The problem with Obama is he’s being dishonest about his racial views. I’d respect him if he’d just come out and say, ‘Yeah, I’m a black racist.’ I don’t hate black people. I just think it’s in the best interest of the races to be separated as much as possible. See, I’m a leftist. I’m not a rightist. I hate the transnational corporations far more than any black person.”
Ron Edwards

Who: Imperial Wizard, Imperial Klans of America

Likes: Guns, bed sheets, burning crosses

Dislikes: Black people, homosexuals, immigrants

Career Highlights: Sued in 2007 by the Southern Poverty Law Center for inciting the brutal beating of a Latino teenager; building the IKA into one of the nation’s largest Klan groups by allowing non-Christians to join.

“Obama, I think he’s a piece of shit. I don’t care that his mother was white. I don’t think he has enough brains to do anything good. All he’s living off of is the color of his skin to get elected. I don’t think America wants a black president. Most of them are too afraid to say that they believe the way I believe. They sit around their dinner table and talk the way I do, but when they get out in public, they have two faces and show the other face. When people are voting in the booth privately, they’ll vote Republican even if they’re a Democrat. If he wins, I’ll laugh. I don’t like McCain, but he’s the only one I can vote for. He’s against a lot of the things that I’m for. I’m afraid that he’s going to mess with gun laws. But I’m going Republican and I talked to my guys and most of them are voting for McCain too.”
Erich Gliebe

Who: Chairman, National Alliance

Likes: Third Reich, the movie Rocky

Dislikes: integration, Jewish-controlled media

Career Highlights: Turning white-power record label, Resistance Records, into a million-dollar-a-year business juggernaut; an 8-0 record as a professional boxer under the nickname, “The Aryan Barbarian.”

“Obama might be a better candidate for our cause because he’s racially conscious. One of our big things in the National Alliance is to raise the racial consciousness of our people. Young whites in universities, they’ve been stripped of any kind of racial identity. Obama may be a racist in a positive sense for his people -- that will awaken a lot of the whites, knock some sense into them. They’ll see that non-white Americans are allowed to be proud of who they are, to be racially conscious, to talk about their people or their community without being attacked as being racist. Let’s face it, white people aren’t going to fight for their causes, for their kind with a white president. I don’t think McCain even acknowledges that a white race exists. He’s all about granting amnesty to illegal aliens. The fact he wants to keep us in wars in the Middle East for 100 years, that’s not a good thing. I give Obama credit, he seems to have stuck to his guns as far as pulling the troops out of Iraq. He’s a very intelligent man, an excellent speaker and has charisma. John McCain offers none of that. Perhaps the best thing for the white race is to have a black president. My only problem with Obama is perhaps he’s not black enough.”
Rocky Suhayda

Who: Chairman, American Nazi Party

Likes: Hitler, white people

Dislikes: Jews, immigrants, multinational corporations Career highlights: Being widely quoted bemoaning in the fact that so few Aryan-Americans had the cojones of the 9/11 hijackers: “If we were one-tenth as serious, we might start getting somewhere.”

“White people are faced with either a negro or a total nutter who happens to have a pale face. Personally I’d prefer the negro. National Socialists are not mindless haters. Here, I see a white man, who is almost dead, who declares he wants to fight endless wars around the globe to make the world safe for Judeo-capitalist exploitation, who supports the invasion of America by illegals -- basically a continuation of the last eight years of Emperor Bush. Then, we have a black man, who loves his own kind, belongs to a Black-Nationalist religion, is married to a black women -- when usually negroes who have ‘made it’ immediately land a white spouse as a kind of prize -- that’s the kind of negro that I can respect. Any time that a prominent person embraces their racial heritage in a positive manner, it’s good for all racially minded folks. Besides, America cares nothing for the interests of the white American worker, while having a love affair with just about every non-white on planet Earth. It’d be poetic justice to have a non-white as titular chief over this decaying modern Sodom and Gomorrah.”
Yahanna

Who: General, Israelite School Of Universal Practical Knowledge

Likes: Segregation

Dislikes: White oppressors, black women, American culture, Muslims, Christians, Martin Luther King Jr.

Career Highlights: Featured in 1999 BBC program about black supremacists; his street corner rants in Washington D.C. spurred changes in the local noise ordinance.

“Finding out Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for president was one of the saddest days in black history. Another legacy of black death is about to begin, just like it began back in the '60s with probably the greatest traitor to black people in modern-day history, Martin Luther King. Every black leader that has some form of power has given black people false hope, when in fact, the closer they get to the white establishment, the more they become an actual enemy to black people. Black people need to move away from the establishment and towards a moral change. As for Obama, first of all, he’s not even a black man in the terms of what real black people consider a black man. He’s of African and white descent. How easily he dismissed his affiliation with Reverend Wright, was a clear indication that this is a politician, not a man of any real conviction. The same way he threw away that Reverend, once he becomes president, he must throw away black people. He’s going to have to harm black people to make white people satisfied that he’s not Reverend Wright’s boy. The disappointment we’re going to suffer from him is going to set us back another fifty years. McCain is definitely the better shot for black people.”[/quote]

[Rumble In the Jungle]

so nati are you sayin you bout to join

[|Bunghole|]

Jesus Christ. So now reverse racism is OK?
This whole "McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years" is complete bullshit, and so is Obama's "change" promise.
Americans are sick of the way things are and they conveniently blame the Presidency for what's wrong in their lives, when in fact they should be writing their Congresspeople!

I am so sick and tired of the smear campaign from both sides I want to vomit. BOTH sides do it, it serves nothing except as an attempt to sway votes, and nothing will be all that much different no matter whom gets elected.

It's CONGRESS that needs to wake the fuck up and pass some laws on a bi-partisan basis.

[DontPushMe]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='673681' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:03 PM']Jesus Christ. So now reverse racism is OK?
This whole "McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years" is complete bullshit[/quote]
So you are saying that what McCain says cant be trusted? I mean, either you believe that he wants to keep us in iraq for 100 years, or you believe that nothing he says can be considered credible. Which side are you on?

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='DontPushMe' post='673686' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:29 PM']So you are saying that what McCain says cant be trusted? I mean, either you believe that he wants to keep us in iraq for 100 years, or you believe that nothing he says can be considered credible. Which side are you on?[/quote]
I'm on the side that says that this "100 years in Iraq" thing was a comment taken out of context by the media for the political gain of Democrats and is being used as a sound bite when in fact Sen McCain was referencing and comparing the outcome of Iraq in a way that was comparable to Germany, Japan and Korea.

That's what he meant, and to assume otherwise is just bullshit partisanship.

And in fact it isn't entirely improbable, but possibly quite more problematic, given the culture and adherence to religion.

Get a fucking clue, dude. This whole "McCain wants to keep our boys/girls in Iraq FOREVER" thing is purely political, nothing more.

The guy is a decorated vet and a POW, why would he actually want that?

[Nati Ice]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='673688' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:43 AM']The guy is a decorated vet and a POW, why would he actually want that?[/quote]
to maintain bases in the most stregically important location in the world today?

what does him being a vet or fromer pow have to do with his current policy? he's either right or he's not, his background does not dictate his stance on current issues. all you would have to do is examine his positions on torture or pretty much any domestic issue to witness just how much he has flip flopped his way out of good graces.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='673693' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:49 PM']to maintain a base in the most stregically important location in the world today?

what does him being a vet or fromer pow have to do with his current policy? he's either right or he's not, his background does not dictate his stance on current issues. all you would have to do is examine his positions on torture or pretty much any domestic issue to witness just how much he has flip flopped his way out of good graces.

the dude is a farce, legitimate critique here or not.[/quote]
First of all Mr Obama supporter, be careful what you wish for.

Secondly, WTF are you talking about?

Yeah, he supports torture!
Look again.

Yeah, he's a flip-flopper alright!

Whatever.

I haven't decided whom I'm voting for....I'm intriuged by Obama but leery of his uber-liberal voting record and stances, and yet McCain is so goddamn old ad crotchety.....


Safe to say I am waiting out the Presidential debates. I don't really trust either of them (and neither should you).

I'm safely ensconsed on the fence here. Give me a reason why, without labelling it "change" without substance.

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='673693' date='Jun 17 2008, 02:49 PM'][b]to maintain bases[/b] in the most stregically important location in the world today?

what does him being a vet or fromer pow have to do with his current policy? he's either right or he's not, his background does not dictate his stance on current issues. all you would have to do is examine his positions on torture or pretty much any domestic issue to witness just how much he has flip flopped his way out of good graces.[/quote]
ding ding ding

[quote]The reaction in Iraq to the US demands for the long-term use of military bases and other rights has been so furious that Washington is now offering limited concessions in the negotiations George Bush is willing to modify some of the demands so the Iraqi government can declare "a significant climbdown" by the American side allowing Baghdad to sign the treaty by July 31.

In practice, there is less to the American "concessions" than would first appear. [b]For example, the US is lowering the number of bases it wants from 58 to "the low dozens" and says it is willing to compromise on legal immunity for foreign contractors according to information leaked to this reporter.[/b]

But the US currently only maintains about 30 large bases in Iraq, some the size of small cities; the rest are "forward operating bases".

The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, denied my report that the US wanted permanent bases in Iraq. But the reality of the US plan is that Iraqi authority would be purely nominal with a few Iraqi soldiers stationed outside the bases.

It will also be difficult for the US to concede that the tens of thousands of foreign contractors in Iraq, who vary from heavily armed security men to support staff, be liable to Iraqi law because the US Army has become dependent on these forces and could scarcely function without them.

The new deal between Iraq and the US is in theory a "status of forces agreement", which the US already has with more than 80 other countries, but, in practice, it is a manoeuver by the US administration to avoid calling the agreement a treaty which, under US law, would then have to be submitted to the Senate. With American politicians wholly absorbed in the presidential election there appears to be only limited interest by congressmen and senators in demanding that the agreement, when signed, be submitted to them.

The fate of the new agreement may depend on the attitude of Iran, which has denounced it fiercely, claiming it would permanently enslave Iraq and turn it into an American client state. Senior Iraqi politicians denouncing the deal include members of the main government party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), such as Jalal al-Din al-Saghir.

"Is there sovereignty for Iraq – or isn't there?" he was quoted as saying. "If it is left to them [the US], they would ask for immunity even for American dogs. Other Iraqi politicians have questioned the continuation of the American occupation in any form.

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, promised Iranian leaders during his visit to Tehran last weekend that Iraqi territory would not be used as an American platform for a military attack on Iran. It is noticeable that the Iraqi politicians within ISCI most vehement in opposing the deal are close to the Badr militia wing of ISCI that has traditionally had close links to Iran.[/quote]

[url="http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick06122008.html"]http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick06122008.html[/url]

Which at least is a mild improvement over this:

[quote]Bush's Secret Deal Would Ensure Permanent U.S. Occupation of Iraq

By PATRICK COCKBURN

[b]A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November.[/b]

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to this reporter, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq.
Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which [b]U.S. troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law[/b], will destabilize Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the U.S.
President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated.

But by perpetuating the U.S. presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw U.S. troops if he is elected president in November.
The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq -- a victory that he says Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 -- 10,000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now.

The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal were signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad, which will be seen as an American pawn.

The U.S. has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." [b]Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.[/b]

Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rasfajani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation." He added, "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without U.S. backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shiia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the U.S. to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament.

But he is said to believe that loss of U.S. support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shiia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The U.S. is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shiia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favor a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want U.S. forces to dilute the power of the Shiia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against U.S. occupation, is likely to be split.[/quote]

[url="http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick06052008.html"]http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick06052008.html[/url]

[|Bunghole|]

And you know what? Even if our entire goal all along was to establish a working relationship with Iraq in order to be their primary oil customer, then...WHOOOPEE!
Who else has had the balls to do so? Fact: we produce over a third of our own oil, and source the rest from mostly Canada and Mexico, with Saudi Arabia being an important contributor. So what's wrong with this, exactly?

Cry illegal war all you want, the UN will be your guide.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='673697' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:00 AM']ding ding ding



[url="http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick06122008.html"]http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick06122008.html[/url]

Which at least is a mild improvement over this:



[url="http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick06052008.html"]http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick06052008.html[/url][/quote]
What would you have the Iraqis do, guarantee their security from Iran from...Iranian factions?
Are you crazy?

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='673698' date='Jun 17 2008, 03:01 PM']And you know what? Even if our entire goal all along was to establish a working relationship with Iraq in order to be their primary oil customer, then...WHOOOPEE!
Who else has had the balls to do so? Fact: we produce over a third of our own oil, and source the rest from mostly Canada and Mexico, with Saudi Arabia being an important contributor. So what's wrong with this, exactly?

Cry illegal war all you want, the UN will be your guide.[/quote]

Even if? Whoopee?



[quote name='Bunghole' post='673699' date='Jun 17 2008, 03:05 PM']What would you have the Iraqis do, guarantee their security from Iran from...Iranian factions?
Are you crazy?[/quote]

I'm sure the US's main goals are all related to guaranteeing security for Iraqis. That's probably why we went over there in the first place. Not oil.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='673700' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:09 AM']Even if? Whoopee?





I'm sure the US's main goals are all related to guaranteeing security for Iraqis. That's probably why we went over there in the first place. Not oil. [/quote]
Uh, yeah. Even if. If you boil down the reason(s) for a war, then...yes, it is acceptable. We are the new Babylon, after all. But I refuse to believe that. I still think that Saddam had something.
Seriously, think about it.
Iran and Iraq were mortal enemies. Wouldn't it benefit Saddam if he even had the illusion of the same weapons he unleashed upon Iran in the 1980's?
It would keep Iran in check. Now what do we have? Iran playing the hegemony card, acting as if they'd never hamr a soujl.

Islamc fanatasicsm is real and worth figthing. Iran is culpable in that respect, most Arab nations are not.

Fuck 'em.

[Nati Ice]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='673698' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:01 AM']And you know what? Even if our entire goal all along was to establish a working relationship with Iraq in order to be their primary oil customer, then...WHOOOPEE!
Who else has had the balls to do so? Fact: we produce over a third of our own oil, and source the rest from mostly Canada and Mexico, with Saudi Arabia being an important contributor. So what's wrong with this, exactly?

Cry illegal war all you want, the UN will be your guide.[/quote]now youre just being crazy

[Nati Ice]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='673703' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:17 AM']Uh, yeah. Even if. If you boil down the reason(s) for a war, then...yes, it is acceptable. We are the new Babylon, after all. But I refuse to believe that. I still think that Saddam had something.
Seriously, think about it.
Iran and Iraq were mortal enemies. Wouldn't it benefit Saddam if he even had the illusion of the same weapons he unleashed upon Iran in the 1980's?
It would keep Iran in check. Now what do we have? Iran playing the hegemony card, acting as if they'd never hamr a soujl.

Islamc fanatasicsm is real and worth figthing. Iran is culpable in that respect, most Arab nations are not.

Fuck 'em.[/quote]the invasion was never justified. there was never reliable intel that iraq had ties to al qaeda. there was never reliable intel that iraq had wmd's. iraq never had shit and couldnt get shit, and just because saddam shoved a few feathers up his ass doesnt make him a chicken. the bottom line is that saddam was able to outsmart the dumbfuck in chief and got himself killed over his bravado. yea, the situation is convenient enough to make prosecuting bush a nightmare, but that doesnt disolve the fact that this was not a necessary war and did nothing to protect the american people. we are now in more danger for invading iraq, our citizens have lost many of their rights in the process, many of our troops and tens ouf thousands of iraqis have died in the process, and our nation is heading for an even larger recession than originally predicted due to the money pit that is occupation in mesopotamia. peaceful occupation is not only not feasible in modern times, it has never been possible [i]there[/i]. every country that has attempted to invade and conquor that area has eventually fallen victim to the sand.

islamic terrorism is real, but taking the traditional route of invasion and occupation is what has led us to fuck up the current unwinnable occupation, led us to abandon a winnable war in afghanistan, and has made us less secure at home in the process. there are too many warring factions in iraq to stay, between 3 major culture groups and outside terrorists moving in to instigate remaining there is not an option. there are 3 possible outcomes of this occupation and none of them involve american "success" as it is widely referred to at home. we will either stay and continue on this path towards death, destruction, and bankrupcy, leave and watch as the remaining factions split, or leave and watch the ensuing civil war with amusement. we have already "won" in iraq, we beat the shit out of saddams military in all of 4 days, where we have faultered is in being brash enough to assume that any amount of ammunition can stave off idiocy and hate.

iraq is a shit hole, it was a shit hole before we got there, and it will be a shit hole after we leave. theres no point in dragging ourselves through the mud when it does nothing to sucure america.


edit: fuck, its late and im stammering and having a hell of a time trying to write this on somebody elses split keyboard, please ignore my shit syntax and spelling

[|BlackJesus|]

[size=3][quote name='Bunghole' post='673688' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:43 AM']The guy is a decorated vet[/quote][/size]
[center][img]http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,823208,00.jpg[/img]

[color="#2F4F4F"][size=5][i]"So Was I !"[color="#FF0000"][size=1]*[/size][/color][/i][/size][/color][/center]



[font="Arial Narrow"][size=1][i][color="#FF0000"]*[/color] 2 Iron Crosses in WWI[/i][/size][/font]

[|BlackJesus|]

[size=3][quote name='Bunghole' post='673688' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:43 AM']this "100 years in Iraq" thing was a comment taken out of context by the media[/quote][/size]
[center][/center]

[|BlackJesus|]

[center][size=4][quote name='Nati Ice' post='673667' date='Jun 16 2008, 10:48 PM'][b]Dislikes:[/b] Race-mixing, Jews[/quote][/size]

[Rumble In the Jungle]

[|BlackJesus|]

[center][size=4][quote name='Nati Ice' post='673667' date='Jun 16 2008, 10:48 PM'][b]Likes: [/b] Guns, bed sheets, burning crosses[/quote][/size]

[Ben]

[quote]Sure, our methodology suffered from an extraordinarily low sample size -- limited to four white supremacists and one black nationalist -- but just because it wouldn’t fly with Gallup doesn’t mean there ain't a kernel of truth in there[/quote]

wait...what?

[bengalrick]

[quote name='DontPushMe' post='673686' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:29 PM']So you are saying that what McCain says cant be trusted? I mean, either you believe that he wants to keep us in iraq for 100 years, or you believe that nothing he says can be considered credible. Which side are you on?[/quote]

If you heard what McCain said, and still think that he wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years, you are a moron... There is a reason that Obama no longer uses that line... It's a FUCKING LIE!!!!

As I joked about on the other thread, the damn wars in Japan and Germany are getting annoying too... The exact two countries that were mentioned seconds after the infamous "100 years" comment...

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='673703' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:17 AM']Islamc fanatasicsm is real and worth figthing. Iran is culpable in that respect, most Arab nations are not.

Fuck 'em.[/quote]

Curious. What are Islamic fanatics going to do to you in your home in Cincinnati, OH, or wherever you live. You know, seeing as how these groups/nations you speak of how no Air Force or Navy worth speaking of.

Oh, and Iran isn't an Arab nation.

[quote]Iran is a diverse country consisting of people of many religions and ethnic backgrounds cemented by the Persian culture. Persians constitute the majority of the population. 70% of present-day Iranians are Iranic peoples, native speakers of Iranian branches of the Indo-European languages. The majority of the population speaks the official language, Persian, and other Iranian languages or dialects, in addition Arabic is spoken in Southwestern Iran, and Turkic dialects, (i.e. Azeri, etc) are spoken in different areas in Iran. The main ethnic groups are Persians (51%), Azeris (24%), Gilaki and Mazandarani (8%), Kurds (7%), [b]Arabs (3%), [/b]Baluchi (2%), Lurs (2%), Turkmens (2%), Laks, Qashqai, Armenians, Persian Jews, Georgians, Assyrians, Circassians, Tats, Mandaeans, Gypsies, Brahuis, Hazara, Kazakhs and others (1%).[3][/quote]

Don't let that get in the way of your "We have to kill A-rabs" statement, though. On a serious note however, you should probably find it problematic that you think that we should maybe go to war with Iran and you didn't know they're not Arabs.

[CTBengalsFan]

I am willing to bet, though, that if you asked random Americans if Iran was an Arab country 95%+ would say yes.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='673899' date='Jun 17 2008, 07:39 PM']Curious. What are Islamic fanatics going to do to you in your home in Cincinnati, OH, or wherever you live. You know, seeing as how these groups/nations you speak of how no Air Force or Navy worth speaking of.

Oh, and Iran isn't an Arab nation.



Don't let that get in the way of your "We have to kill A-rabs" statement, though. On a serious note however, you should probably find it problematic that you think that we should maybe go to war with Iran and you didn't know they're not Arabs. [/quote]
I didn't say we had to attack Iran. They do need contained, though, and the world agrees that a nuclear armed Iran is a very bad idea, so we're not alone on that one.
And yes, I DO know that Iran is Persian, but their country is located in the Arab part of the world, hence my statement about "most Arab nations do not". It was convenient to my argument to lump them in with the rest of the Middle East because they ARE in the Middle East, which as you well know, IS largely Arabic.

And as far as what Islamic fanatics are going to do to me in Cincinnati, why don't you ask the people of NYC?

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

Agreed with the 95% comment. It's pretty bad up here as well. Although there is a very large Iranian population here in Toronto. So that does make a little bit of a difference.

The Gulf Arab countries can't stand Iran. And the feeling is largely reciprocated. There are border disputes with nearly all the countries.
And finally the Saudi's and Iranians are pretty much in a consistent struggle to prove who's the big swinging dick in the region. Example being earlier this week when the Iranians pretty much slammed the Saudi move to raise production by 500k. (The Saudi's are amongst the worst oil cheats in OPEC)

And on a final note, Iranian women are stunning.