This is the future of the US........

[El Kabong]

And what effect do religious nutjobs have on American policy?

I am just saying that all religious people don't act as bad as you believe: Martin Luther King Jr., Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, etc.

However there have been zealots (an actual name for an early sect of Christianity...the Zealots) in many religious positions and for many different religions. Look up the Borgia Pope....perfect example of a power hungry nutjob.....there are plenty of Popes that were evil, but I am 100% sure they are matched by Muslim Imams and Ayatollahs

My view on religion is not focused on just the United States.


USALOVESTHEKLITCHKOS, my uncle was living in Paris at the time of those "huge riots" and not to refute your claims of rioting but the KIND of rioting that was going on was different than what got coverage. The people were rioting over MAYBE having to work to keep their jobs (you can't get fired in France) and the possibility that the work week might extend past 30 hours. Were muslims involved in the rioting? Yeah I guess, but it wasn't to take down the government or anything.

[El Kabong]

If you define "kicking ass" as a terrorist act that kills civilians/rioting then 9/11 unquestionably counts as a severe ass kicking.

....not to show off my nationalism BUT

I suppose taking over 2 entire countries in a matter of months has to rate above all those

[Kirkland Laing]

And what effect do religious nutjobs have on American policy?

I am just saying that all religious people don't act as bad as you believe: Martin Luther King Jr., Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, etc.

However there have been zealots (an actual name for an early sect of Christianity...the Zealots) in many religious positions and for many different religions. Look up the Borgia Pope....perfect example of a power hungry nutjob.....there are plenty of Popes that were evil, but I am 100% sure they are matched by Muslim Imams and Ayatollahs

My view on religion is not focused on just the United States.


USALOVESTHEKLITCHKOS, my uncle was living in Paris at the time of those "huge riots" and not to refute your claims of rioting but the KIND of rioting that was going on was different than what got coverage. The people were rioting over MAYBE having to work to keep their jobs (you can't get fired in France) and the possibility that the work week might extend past 30 hours. Were muslims involved in the rioting? Yeah I guess, but it wasn't to take down the government or anything.

Picking three well-known nice people to show how religion affects the US really isn't answering the question, is it? Especially as only one of them is even American.

MLK isn't a good example either. The US establishment turned against him and most of their support came from southern white religious folks. The southern churches didn't want anything to do with race reform.

But how does religion actually affect US policy, especially towards the rest of the world?

[Kirkland Laing]

If you define "kicking ass" as a terrorist act that kills civilians/rioting then 9/11 unquestionably counts as a severe ass kicking.

....not to show off my nationalism BUT

I suppose taking over 2 entire countries in a matter of months has to rate above all those

You "took over" Vietnam too. Iraq and Afghanistan have been similarly "taken over."

[Andre]

And what effect do religious nutjobs have on American policy?

I am just saying that all religious people don't act as bad as you believe: Martin Luther King Jr., Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, etc.

However there have been zealots (an actual name for an early sect of Christianity...the Zealots) in many religious positions and for many different religions. Look up the Borgia Pope....perfect example of a power hungry nutjob.....there are plenty of Popes that were evil, but I am 100% sure they are matched by Muslim Imams and Ayatollahs

My view on religion is not focused on just the United States.


USALOVESTHEKLITCHKOS, my uncle was living in Paris at the time of those "huge riots" and not to refute your claims of rioting but the KIND of rioting that was going on was different than what got coverage. The people were rioting over MAYBE having to work to keep their jobs (you can't get fired in France) and the possibility that the work week might extend past 30 hours. Were muslims involved in the rioting? Yeah I guess, but it wasn't to take down the government or anything.

Picking three well-known nice people to show how religion affects the US really isn't answering the question, is it? Especially as only one of them is even American.

MLK isn't a good example either. The US establishment turned against him and most of their support came from southern white religious folks. The southern churches didn't want anything to do with race reform.

But how does religion actually affect US policy, especially towards the rest of the world?

Not so much policy but it gets a stonghold via massive backing and votes from all the religious sheep.
IT forms links in their chain.
Policies are for them to hold in front of the eyes of the public while they do their real underhanded business.
Bush turned "born again" for a reason and that reason is numbers.
Im not just picking on bush or one party either ,we have two choices out here: liberal or labour your a fool to think a vote for any other party in Australia is any thing other than a wasted vote!
We choose between the devil and deep blue sea every time.

[El Kabong]

Picking three well-known nice people to show how religion affects the US really isn't answering the question, is it? Especially as only one of them is even American.

MLK isn't a good example either. The US establishment turned against him and most of their support came from southern white religious folks. The southern churches didn't want anything to do with race reform.

But how does religion actually affect US policy, especially towards the rest of the world?

OK how's about evil non-religious people.

Josef Stalin - USSR
Mao ZeDung - China
Adolf Hitler - Germany
Pol Pot - Cambodia
Slobodan Milocevic - Yugoslavia
Saddam Hussein - Iraq
Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Augusto Pinochet - Chile
Ceauşescu - Romania

There's a ton more I am sure....you don't HAVE to be religious to be a horrible leader

You "took over" Vietnam too. Iraq and Afghanistan have been similarly "taken over."

...Vietnam had support from China and the USSR as well as Kennedy botched putting in replacement leaders (and he was a Democrat).

The take over of Iraq and Afghanistan were possibly the greatest military successes of all time....talk about total domination.....now taking over and holding power are totally different things but the "Shock and Awe" campaign was a total success....the "Enduring Freedom" campaign was a total shame.....the surge has worked since then though and the slow down now is mainly political.

[USA LOVES THE KLITSCHKOS]

So why not start out with that policy to start with ? Why not openly embrace guys like the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq just after 9/11 instead of pretending you were going to go after them. Because when you do threaten to go after them then end up having to invite them to the White House it makes you look like a total flip-flopping appeasing Frenchman. It makes it look like the Muslims kicked your a*** to the Muslim world. It emboldens them -- Bush is emboldening the Islamic extremists out there by appeasing his declared enemies, so how is that a smart move ?

Muslims kicked Spain's a** with train bombings and kicked France's with a riot but they a kicked no a** over here and they know it.

If you define "kicking a**" as a terrorist act that kills civilians/rioting then 9/11 unquestionably counts as a severe a** kicking.

Definition of the ass kicking France and Spain took: When one gets the shit beat out of them without fighting back,Spain surrendered and France just put out the fires, the muslims hit us with a sucker punch but we struck back.

[USA LOVES THE KLITSCHKOS]

Picking three well-known nice people to show how religion affects the US really isn't answering the question, is it? Especially as only one of them is even American.

MLK isn't a good example either. The US establishment turned against him and most of their support came from southern white religious folks. The southern churches didn't want anything to do with race reform.

But how does religion actually affect US policy, especially towards the rest of the world?

OK how's about evil non-religious people.

Josef Stalin - USSR
Mao ZeDung - China
Adolf Hitler - Germany
Pol Pot - Cambodia
Slobodan Milocevic - Yugoslavia
Saddam Hussein - Iraq
Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Augusto Pinochet - Chile
Ceauşescu - Romania

There's a ton more I am sure....you don't HAVE to be religious to be a horrible leader

You "took over" Vietnam too. Iraq and Afghanistan have been similarly "taken over."

...Vietnam had support from China and the USSR as well as Kennedy botched putting in replacement leaders (and he was a Democrat).

The take over of Iraq and Afghanistan were possibly the greatest military successes of all time....talk about total domination.....now taking over and holding power are totally different things but the "Shock and Awe" campaign was a total success....the "Enduring Freedom" campaign was a total shame.....the surge has worked since then though and the slow down now is mainly political.

If it wasn't for the media playing to the liberals of the world we could have finished this up a lot faster.

[El Kabong]

That being the case we still went in too light...we needed more troops sooner.

Plus the cultural/sectarian differences made this a difficult task to begin with but many people didn't know about the violent differences in the islamic faith and it hurt us.

[Kirkland Laing]

And what effect do religious nutjobs have on American policy?

I am just saying that all religious people don't act as bad as you believe: Martin Luther King Jr., Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, etc.

However there have been zealots (an actual name for an early sect of Christianity...the Zealots) in many religious positions and for many different religions. Look up the Borgia Pope....perfect example of a power hungry nutjob.....there are plenty of Popes that were evil, but I am 100% sure they are matched by Muslim Imams and Ayatollahs

My view on religion is not focused on just the United States.


USALOVESTHEKLITCHKOS, my uncle was living in Paris at the time of those "huge riots" and not to refute your claims of rioting but the KIND of rioting that was going on was different than what got coverage. The people were rioting over MAYBE having to work to keep their jobs (you can't get fired in France) and the possibility that the work week might extend past 30 hours. Were muslims involved in the rioting? Yeah I guess, but it wasn't to take down the government or anything.

Picking three well-known nice people to show how religion affects the US really isn't answering the question, is it? Especially as only one of them is even American.

MLK isn't a good example either. The US establishment turned against him and most of their support came from southern white religious folks. The southern churches didn't want anything to do with race reform.

But how does religion actually affect US policy, especially towards the rest of the world?

Not so much policy but it gets a stonghold via massive backing and votes from all the religious sheep.
IT forms links in their chain.
Policies are for them to hold in front of the eyes of the public while they do their real underhanded business.
Bush turned "born again" for a reason and that reason is numbers.
Im not just picking on bush or one party either ,we have two choices out here: liberal or labour your a fool to think a vote for any other party in Australia is any thing other than a wasted vote!
We choose between the devil and deep blue sea every time.

When a leader starts claiming he's guided by god and adds this to a toxic level of nationalism then it's a serious problem that increases in severity corresponding to how powerful a military that country has.

Australia is like England, it doesn't matter who you vote for because either party just fiddles about in the margins. Our respective leaders then generally compete to see who can be George Bush's new cabin boy.

The only political situation to be at all bothered about is the American one.

[Kirkland Laing]

Picking three well-known nice people to show how religion affects the US really isn't answering the question, is it? Especially as only one of them is even American.

MLK isn't a good example either. The US establishment turned against him and most of their support came from southern white religious folks. The southern churches didn't want anything to do with race reform.

But how does religion actually affect US policy, especially towards the rest of the world?

OK how's about evil non-religious people.

Josef Stalin - USSR
Mao ZeDung - China
Adolf Hitler - Germany
Pol Pot - Cambodia
Slobodan Milocevic - Yugoslavia
Saddam Hussein - Iraq
Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Augusto Pinochet - Chile
Ceauşescu - Romania

There's a ton more I am sure....you don't HAVE to be religious to be a horrible leader

You "took over" Vietnam too. Iraq and Afghanistan have been similarly "taken over."

...Vietnam had support from China and the USSR as well as Kennedy botched putting in replacement leaders (and he was a Democrat).

The take over of Iraq and Afghanistan were possibly the greatest military successes of all time....talk about total domination.....now taking over and holding power are totally different things but the "Shock and Awe" campaign was a total success....the "Enduring Freedom" campaign was a total shame.....the surge has worked since then though and the slow down now is mainly political.

What does a bunch of dictators, some of whom used religion like Bush does, have to do with anything?

Taking over Iraq and Afghanistan were nothing at all. The Afghans and the Iraqis let you drive down the only road in their countries to take their capital, then started insurgencies. Driving up the only road in the country to an undefended capital is not exactly the greatest military success of all time. Look how successful it is now too.

The surge hasn't worked at all. It's just temporarily delayed things. There's now no moves towards political reconciliation being taken in Iraq. The country's now run by Iran. They're going to get the oil and we're going to be left to police a statelet of millions of outrages, impoverished Sunnis who used to run the world's second-largest oil reserve and now own a bunch of date palms. And this is being presented as a success.

Victory in Iraq was supposed to be a quick war, of minimal costs and casualties, creating little strain on our military, that resulted in a liberal, democratic, unified peaceful state that would set off a chain reaction of democratic uprisings in the Muslim world, while vastly weakening al-Qaeda and other extremist organizations. Now Iran own the good bit and we've got a problem that's going to see us face terrorism for decades while policing the world's terrorist capital, the Country Formerly Known As Iraq.

[Kirkland Laing]

So why not start out with that policy to start with ? Why not openly embrace guys like the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq just after 9/11 instead of pretending you were going to go after them. Because when you do threaten to go after them then end up having to invite them to the White House it makes you look like a total flip-flopping appeasing Frenchman. It makes it look like the Muslims kicked your a*** to the Muslim world. It emboldens them -- Bush is emboldening the Islamic extremists out there by appeasing his declared enemies, so how is that a smart move ?

Muslims kicked Spain's a** with train bombings and kicked France's with a riot but they a kicked no a** over here and they know it.

If you define "kicking a**" as a terrorist act that kills civilians/rioting then 9/11 unquestionably counts as a severe a** kicking.

Definition of the ass kicking France and Spain took: When one gets the shit beat out of them without fighting back,Spain surrendered and France just put out the fires, the muslims hit us with a sucker punch but we struck back.

You don't fight terrorism militarily. It isn't a country you can invade. It's an abstract noun. The problem is that George Bush has managed to use the liberal media to terrify enough Americans into wetting the bed so badly that they'll let him do anything. These bedwetters have given the world a president who has been a total disaster for the world and America especially.

[El Kabong]

When a leader starts claiming he's guided by god and adds this to a toxic level of nationalism then it's a serious problem that increases in severity corresponding to how powerful a military that country has.

Australia is like England, it doesn't matter who you vote for because either party just fiddles about in the margins. Our respective leaders then generally compete to see who can be George Bush's new cabin boy.

The only political situation to be at all bothered about is the American one.

...sounds more like YOUR country has a problem rather than America.

If no one in the world wants America to be "THE POWER" then get off your fucking asses and do something and stop fucking moaning about it.

You vote for the people who vote in guys like Blair...do something about YOUR people before you bitch about ours



Who used religion? Name me ONE example from that group who did anything religious!

Also W doesn't say he's God incarnate and he doesn't whip up religious problems....when was the last time you saw Bush lead a rally the way the Imams do in Iran?

Bush ain't the best President but get off his ass...he's better than Jimmy Carter and a lot more former Presidents

[USA LOVES THE KLITSCHKOS]

So why not start out with that policy to start with ? Why not openly embrace guys like the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq just after 9/11 instead of pretending you were going to go after them. Because when you do threaten to go after them then end up having to invite them to the White House it makes you look like a total flip-flopping appeasing Frenchman. It makes it look like the Muslims kicked your a*** to the Muslim world. It emboldens them -- Bush is emboldening the Islamic extremists out there by appeasing his declared enemies, so how is that a smart move ?

Muslims kicked Spain's a** with train bombings and kicked France's with a riot but they a kicked no a** over here and they know it.

If you define "kicking a**" as a terrorist act that kills civilians/rioting then 9/11 unquestionably counts as a severe a** kicking.

Definition of the a** kicking France and Spain took: When one gets the S*** beat out of them without fighting back,Spain surrendered and France just put out the fires, the muslims hit us with a sucker punch but we struck back.

You don't fight terrorism militarily. It isn't a country you can invade. It's an abstract noun. The problem is that George Bush has managed to use the liberal media to terrify enough Americans into wetting the bed so badly that they'll let him do anything. These bedwetters have given the world a president who has been a total disaster for the world and America especially.

You don't fight terrorism militarily. It isn't a country you can invade.

The majority of them support terrorist and terrorism.

The problem is that George Bush has managed to use the liberal media to terrify enough Americans


The stupid muslims lit the fuse to this mess.

[Kirkland Laing]

So why not start out with that policy to start with ? Why not openly embrace guys like the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq just after 9/11 instead of pretending you were going to go after them. Because when you do threaten to go after them then end up having to invite them to the White House it makes you look like a total flip-flopping appeasing Frenchman. It makes it look like the Muslims kicked your a*** to the Muslim world. It emboldens them -- Bush is emboldening the Islamic extremists out there by appeasing his declared enemies, so how is that a smart move ?

Muslims kicked Spain's a** with train bombings and kicked France's with a riot but they a kicked no a** over here and they know it.

If you define "kicking a**" as a terrorist act that kills civilians/rioting then 9/11 unquestionably counts as a severe a** kicking.

Definition of the a** kicking France and Spain took: When one gets the S*** beat out of them without fighting back,Spain surrendered and France just put out the fires, the muslims hit us with a sucker punch but we struck back.

You don't fight terrorism militarily. It isn't a country you can invade. It's an abstract noun. The problem is that George Bush has managed to use the liberal media to terrify enough Americans into wetting the bed so badly that they'll let him do anything. These bedwetters have given the world a president who has been a total disaster for the world and America especially.

You don't fight terrorism militarily. It isn't a country you can invade.

The majority of them support terrorist and terrorism.

The problem is that George Bush has managed to use the liberal media to terrify enough Americans


The stupid muslims lit the fuse to this mess.

Let's say for a moment that it's true that the majority of Muslims support terrorism. George Bush said invading Iraq and creating a democratic government would start to solve the problem. Now Iraq has a government that recognises the right of Iraqis to attack American troops in Iraq. The Iraqi government were also the only Arab country that didn't send a delegate to the recent Israel-Palestine peace conference. So how does what Bush has done help ?

History didn't start on 9/11. The people who knocked over a couple of your office buildings were doing it because of stuff you've been doing for decades. It's amazing it took that long before the first big attack.