Speak Out: who supported Morsi?

Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 1, 2013, at 9:15 PM:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/morsi-egypt-uprising-military/2013/07/01/id/5128...

Weren't there some @ssclown politicians from the USA, that supported this Morsi/Muslim Brotherhood crowd?

Replies (84)

  • The sweetest sound he ever heard was the Muslim call to prayer.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 2, 2013, at 12:33 AM
  • Freedom

    It seems that Obama made another bad pick. 17 million protestors said so. We again get a black eye.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 2, 2013, at 9:46 AM
  • who supported Morsi?

    "Obama proposes $800 million in aid for "Arab Spring" - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/us-usa-budget-foreign-idUSTRE81C1C9201...

    Obama said: " "through the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades."

    From the NY Times (here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/us/politics/arab-spring-proves-a-harsh-test-fo... ): "Mr. Obama, during a tense telephone call the evening of Feb. 1, 2011, had just told Mr. Mubarak that he had to step down. Mr. Mubarak replied "You don't understand this part of the world. You're young."

    "Nineteen months later, Mr. Obama was at the State Department consoling some of the very officials he had overruled. Anti-American protests broke out in Egypt and Libya. In Libya, they led to the deaths of four Americans, including the United States ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens. A new Egyptian government run by the Muslim Brotherhood was dragging its feet about condemning attacks on the American Embassy in Cairo."

    "Television sets in the United States were filled with images of Arabs, angry over an American-made video that ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad, burning American flags and even effigies of Mr. Obama."

    Obama is a failure. He is inexperienced and clueless and worst of all the most arrogant person to hold this office. And we are paying the price. In Egypt women (beheadings, rapes), Christians (murdered, burned) and anyone that disagrees with the radical Islam view are paying for Obama's mistake with their life. I hope he enjoys his $100 million African vacation this week.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jul 2, 2013, at 9:50 AM
  • Maybe obama and the US government should just stay out of other country's political business. Maybe even concentrate on this country's problems. Maybe even do something to solve some of them.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jul 2, 2013, at 4:55 PM
  • Ahhh.... the Arab Spring that Obama supported and spoke so highly of. Look at these photos fresh from Egypt that you won't see in the Obamamedia. Very very interesting:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-02/guest-post-egyptians-love-us-our-freedo...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jul 3, 2013, at 7:09 AM
  • Dug, Surely you're not suggesting that all that money and diplomacy ain't working!

    Hurray for those folks that see through this farce of supporting the Muslim radicals as a stabling factor in the middle east.

    The Obama administration is working All out to redefine a coup regarding foriegn aid. Who would have thunk it?

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 3, 2013, at 11:46 PM
  • OJ - money, speeches, hugs, invites to the White House dinners, negotiating / meeting with terrorists. It's the "new" diplomacy.

    I feel all the excitement of the fall of the iron curtain and the Soviet Union in the 80's is being played backwards. Obama's so-called diplomacy is building the new "hope and change" curtain and we are disliked more than ever thanks to his apology tour and anti-American views.

    Yes Common, I said it and mean it. His view of America is utter disrespect and disdain for the country he grew up in. He's a 70's pot head, cocaine user that hung with his anti-American marxist buddies (his words). It shows in his diplomacy and we pay for it.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 8:32 AM
  • This might come as a shocker to some of you righties, but I've never seen a politician (either party)that I agreed with 100% of the time. I have never, never approved of foreign aid to any country, Jew, Gentile, Muslim or whatever. I don't approve of Obama giving money to foreign folks. Never have and never will.

    -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 10:15 AM
  • Even a greater shocker,lefty my friend,I am in total agreement.

    -- Posted by bothedog on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 10:22 AM
  • Well, it appears that we have gone a long way towards solving the Obama debt debacle here this morning, with the elimination of foreign aid. ;-)

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 10:27 AM
  • "...I said it and mean it."

    So what? No one really cares much about your delusional positions. Except for a few on SO, less than 10% of Americans would agree with your gloom and doom scenario, and those are mostly the real whackos. The rest of us are enjoying the 4th of July and are unreservedly confident of many more to come.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 3:33 PM
  • Except for a few on SO, less than 10% of Americans would agree with your gloom and doom scenario-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 3:33 PM

    Talk about "delusional" - you libs always go to the names when you're incapable of responding.

    From this past week: "For the first time in over nine months, Gallup's tracking poll has President Obama's job approval rating sinking to 45%. The last time that happened was back in September of 2012. Moreover, the president's disapproval rating has climbed to 47%, meaning he is upside down. The last time that happened was nearly as long ago."

    10%? You're delusional...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 3:37 PM
  • So even by your post, about half the country approves and half disapproves.

    Implying that the iron curtain and the Soviet Union of the 80's are coming back is what is delusional. If you don't realy believe that, maybe there's hope for you.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 4:46 PM
  • The rest of us are enjoying the 4th of July and are unreservedly confident of many more to come.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters

    I too think there will many July 4ths to come but we are talking about Independence Day which IMHO is waning in celebration for what it represents.

    Many people of Egypt have risked their honor, their fortunes and their lives to have a little of what we take for granted only to have a U.S. president support an oppressive radical religious cult forbidding any gain in individual freedom.

    I heard Herman Cain talk about an imaginary situation where Thomas Jefferson dropped in on a family gathering today, July Fourth. How would you explain to Jefferson the results of the progressive agenda? What would he say about foriegn military aid? How would you explain a national police force, an IRS that allows the central government to be informed of ones income and notification of any large transactions?

    Having no concern of the direction the country is going in delusional

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 11:37 PM
  • Morsi is gone. The people of Egypt were complaining that he was too focused on religion rather than the economy and jobs. That would seem to be a good sign.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 11:49 PM
  • Shapley, You been away or just busy?

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 11:51 PM
  • Maybe this will make it clearer: https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=updates#!/photo.php?v=577594088928426&set=v...

    I think this was in 1969.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 12:24 AM
  • Old John,

    The leftists will not approve of that.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 12:59 AM
  • "....support an oppressive radical religious cult forbidding any gain in individual freedom."

    Perhaps you forgot to remember that the Egyptian people elected him.

    How is it our place to interfere in their elections?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 5:18 AM
  • How is it our place to send Egypt military aid and billions of taxpayer dollars in aid?

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 5:42 AM
  • Actually the most obvious reason is to counteract and counterbalance the billions of dollars we send to Israel.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 7:04 AM
  • Just saw a WH pic of Obama in the situation room discussing the Egyptian crisis. Notably absent was Sec of State Kerry as he was yachting. Looked like very concerned bunch. Just wondering where the PR pics of that same situation room the night 4 Americans were being murdered in Benghazi? I guess there weren't any.

    -- Posted by bothedog on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 7:25 AM
  • Morsi was a "thug" the people seen that and threw his butt out of office.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 9:23 AM
  • Perhaps you forgot to remember that the Egyptian people elected him.

    How is it our place to interfere in their elections?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 5:18 AM

    Correct, it is not our place to interfere in their elections and that is exactly what the president did.

    And yes it was done to favor a stronger coalition against Israel.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 12:46 PM
  • "...that is exactly what the [P]resident did."

    There is no indication of that whatsoever, and certainly not to "...favor a stronger coalition against Israel."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 1:50 PM
  • How is it our place to send Egypt military aid and billions of taxpayer dollars in aid?

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 5:42 AM

    Actually the most obvious reason is to counteract and counterbalance the billions of dollars we send to Israel.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 7:04 AM

    How is it our place to send Isreal military aid and billions in taxpayer dollars in aid?

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 2:26 PM
  • Actually the most obvious reason is to counteract and counterbalance the billions of dollars we send to Israel.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 7:04 AM

    So according to Common, we arm both sides so that there is no winner.... the US Taxpayer included, because his money is blowed up by two equally armed countries at taxpayer expense.

    What a unique & highly successful program that is!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 3:53 PM
  • "...we arm both sides so that there is no winner...."

    So which side should we dump, or both. It is a bit surprising that you were not aware of the current situation regarding aid to Middle Eastern countries.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 4:20 PM
  • So which side should we dump, or both. It is a bit surprising that you were not aware of the current situation regarding aid to Middle Eastern countries.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 4:20 PM

    Common,

    If we are going to dump only one.... we dump the bad guys. Preferably we would dump both of them.

    I am surprised that you are suprised that I don't know everything our government is doing. Unlike you.... I do not claim expert status on everything.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 4:47 PM
  • So even by your post, about half the country approves and half disapproves. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 4, 2013, at 4:46 PM

    Take off your shoes and use your toes to do the math Common. 55% disapprove of the president and 45% approve. To a liberal like you 55% is a "landslide" election result. Remember 2012? Obama won 52% of the popular vote and you declared "landslide".

    Using your own warped math it is decidedly a landslide of Americans that don't like Obama.

    And clearly 5 1/2 times more don't like him than your weak "10%". Spin that.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jul 5, 2013, at 10:50 PM
  • Some are confused, as usual...

    The numbers above are 45% approval and 47% disapproval. Keeping in mind that those are the midpoint with a plus/minus of normally 3%, therefore there's a 95% chance that actual approval number is between 48% and 42% and the actual disapproval number is between 50% and 44%.

    The 10% number (clearly higher on SO) was representative of the small group that will disapprove of everything, most likely because they detest the man himself, and ignore what has been accomplished.

    Furthermore, a different more recent poll has his approval going back up and is at 47%, and continuing to climb.

    That is the rationale behind my affirmation that the country is evenly split, with about half for and half against. Also, you may want to keep in mind that the majority of respondents base their opinion on current events, and may disapprove even when they know that we don't have total or perfect control over everything.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 6, 2013, at 7:31 AM
  • If a vehicle spins it is usually because it is stuck on something very slick.

    If Common spins it appears to be because he is stuck on Obama, something also very slick and slimey.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jul 6, 2013, at 8:01 AM
  • The 10% number (clearly higher on SO) was representative of the small group that will disapprove of everything, most likely because they detest the man himself, and ignore what has been accomplished.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 6, 2013, at 7:31 AM

    Your source on that 10%? You've got nothing other than the thing you deride most on here - your "personal" opinion. Ask your high school teacher in August what disapproval means. It doesn't mean "10% disapprove of everything and 90% approve". Disapproval means DISAPPROVAL - period. Merriam Webster is rolling over in his grave with your spin of the dictionary.

    And you couldn't be more wrong (as usual) about SO people ignoring Obama's accomplishments. I commend Obama on his accomplishments all the time:

    Record unemployment

    Record debt/deficits

    Record welfare / food stamps

    Slowest recover in US history (even slower than the great depression)

    More than 2 times the troops killed in Afghanistan than under Bush

    Doubled the number of "free cell phones" since becoming president

    Need more "accomplishments"? I'm just getting started.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jul 6, 2013, at 8:31 AM
  • ".......most likely because they detest the [M]an [H]imself, and ignore what has been accomplished."

    I think what you call accomplished is reason for most of the disapproval.

    A Detroit paper headline April 10, 1865:

    Every Man, Women and Child is hereby ordered to be on hand prepared to Sing and Rejoice. The crowd are expected to join in singing Patriotic Songs.

    ALL PLACES OF BUSINESS MUST BE CLOSED AT 2 O'CLOCK.

    Hurray for Grant and his noble Army.

    ````````````````````````````````````

    Maybe When Obama can wield such influence over the press will the libs be happy.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 6, 2013, at 10:38 AM
  • "Need more 'accomplishments'?"

    Of course. But you may want to get your head out of the sand first.

    Are you unaware that the GDP has increased consistently for the past 5 years?

    Do you not know that the stock market has doubled since the President took office?

    Did you miss the fact that Osama bin Laden was taken out?

    Possibly you forgot that one Middle Eastern dictator was removed at the cost of zero American lives and a billion dollars (compared to another dictator taken down at the cost of 5000 American lives and a trillion dollars?

    Perhaps you don't know that more Americans have health care coverage that ever before?

    Need more actual accomplishments? I'm just getting started.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 6, 2013, at 1:31 PM
  • "Are you unaware that the GDP has increased consistently for the past 5 years?" - Yes. The GDP never decreases. The fact you omit is the slowest economic recovery in history. You own that - twice.

    "Did you miss the fact that Osama bin Laden was taken out?" - Yes. But neither you or Obama took him out. As is well documented in books and a movie - thanks the the intelligence leaks by Leon Panetta - this was done by the same people under George Bush. Obama, on the golf course, signed the order for bin Laden's kill.

    "Possibly you forgot that one Middle Eastern dictator was removed at the cost of zero American lives and a billion dollars" - Possibly you forget that the one dictator that Obama removed was a US ALLY. Funny you would think of that as a "success" - figures. The other one was a US enemy that had killed 100's of thousands in Iran, Kuwait and in his own country. But we don't care about women and children getting gassed do we?

    "Perhaps you don't know that more Americans have health care coverage that ever before?" - That we can agree on. But that is all pre-Obamacare. When the law finally takes effect - when he figures an election isn't close - then there will be more without insurance than ever. And few doctors.

    Surely you can do better than this Common?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jul 6, 2013, at 4:15 PM
  • Those examples of Obamas accomplishments were as limp as his wrists,common. Gotta do better,my friend.

    -- Posted by bothedog on Sat, Jul 6, 2013, at 4:54 PM
  • Common, You forgot the beer summit.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 6, 2013, at 11:49 PM
  • "Gotta do better..."

    Some of you really may be beyond help...

    Were President Obama "faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound," the SO crew would still find fault with him. Someone would whine about his being susceptible to "kryptonite."

    Maybe that's the problem, the do-nothing, obstructionist republican House and Senate members could be the President's "kryptonite."

    Then again, possibly there's nothing to worry about, the evil-doers always get outwitted and lose in the end.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 6:48 AM
  • I had the feeling common lived in a comic book world of fantasy and pretty pictures.

    -- Posted by bothedog on Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 7:12 AM
  • Reagan didn't give chemical weaponry to Iraq. Dig a little deeper than "the google" you embrace. Here's one on Jimmy Carter - another of your faves. I guess I could say "we told you so" about Carter...

    "Biographer and Middle Eastern politician Said K. Aburish, author of Saddam Hussein: The Politics Of Revenge, says the Iraqi dictator made a visit to Amman IN THE YEAR 1979, before the Iran--Iraq War, where he met with King Hussein and, very possibly, three agents of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Aburish says there is "considerable evidence that he discussed his plans to invade Iran with the CIA agents."[9][10][11] Timmerman records American officials meeting only with King Hussein (in a meeting unrelated to Iraq) on precisely this same date, noting that this "top-secret negotiating session was Brzezinski's idea." He later quotes National Security Council staff member and former aide Gary G. Sick: (Carter Administration)"... more?

    "The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign sources.[22] The largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie Ltd.) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates (UAE), supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq."

    The US did back Saddam Hussein beginning under Ford, then Carter, then Reagan, then Bush. Carter was especially pleased after the Iranian revolution and the muslim clerics move to take over all affairs of Iran.

    You've got nothing here but a reference to Reagan? Why don't you post something relevant - like maybe what Ronald Reagan felt about Italy about the time that Julius Caeser ruled. Saddam Hussein was, at one time, a reliable ally to the US through several administrations.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 9:33 AM
  • Back to the nastiness of your trademark posts are we? That is the traditional method of your "defense" of weak positions. As your friend once said right here on Speak Out - "Jay, you are never going to get a girl with that attitude". Your friend knows your nasty attitude well - as do we.

    why don't you respond to the rest? Too tough for you?

    =================================

    "He defended Saddam's use of chem weapons on civilians." -- Posted by Spaniard on Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 8:58 AM

    Now try and pull up where Reagan defended Husseins use of chemical weapons. I'm sure you can use "the Google" to do that?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 10:04 AM
  • -- Posted by Spaniard on Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 9:55 AM

    You said "defended" - not supported. Either you understand the difference between "defend" and "support" or you have a huge egg on that egotistical face.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 10:06 AM
  • Saw this quote today: "If Obama had a country, it would look like Egypt". His hands are all over this from the disposing of Mubarek, to the billions in financial aid to the military, to the embracing of the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi to the recent "no comment" on what is going on. He's the biggest endorsement of the wonderful "Arab Spring".

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 7:33 PM
  • Rick, I don't think it is so much a liberal-conservative thing. A substantial number of better educated, more aware young folks saw a chance for more freedom and ouster of a strict dictater. U.S policy sided against the dictater not with the freedom seekers in mind but on behalf of another tyrant in form of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Obama is one smart n=man of Harvard degree and constitution study. I think he knew what he was doing.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 11:34 PM
  • "U.S policy sided against the dictater not with the freedom seekers in mind but on behalf of another tyrant..."

    US policy was not clearly not in favor of "another tyrant." It was in favor of democratic elections, and the fact that Egyptians elected a conservative government is hardly our fault.

    It is difficult to be in favor of democratic elections, and then try to control who the winner is.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 8, 2013, at 11:16 AM
  • Just couldn't let this one pass,common. Were you referencing Egypt or the US?

    "It is difficult to be in favor of democratic elections, and then try to control who the winner is."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 8, 2013, at 11:16 AM

    -- Posted by bothedog on Mon, Jul 8, 2013, at 11:28 AM
  • "Shapley, You been away or just busy?"

    I've been away, but I've been browsing the posts.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 2:29 PM
  • "Are you unaware that the GDP has increased consistently for the past 5 years?"

    Apparently, you are unaware that it hasn't.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 2:44 PM
  • "Apparently, you are unaware that it hasn't."

    Then it must have been decreasing consistently for the past 5 years.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 4:00 PM
  • I think GDP is what ever the government says it is. They have a record of being consistant in the formulas used to calculate such. :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 4:07 PM
  • From National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82:

    "Donald Rumsfeld on a December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, CITING THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights."

    and

    Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had PUBLICLY CONDEMNED Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons" [Document 47]."

    There's much more if you need.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 7:39 PM
  • Ike is just trying to assist Obama in his attempt to distract America from the current scandals underway. And it appears to be working as we are hearing little to nothing about the roughshod way the IRS is treating Americans, and when is the last time we heard anything about the 4 dead men abandoned in Benghazi.

    It is shameful.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 7:44 PM
  • Wheels is paranoid

    -- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 7:49 PM

    Really Ike.... I'm not the one beating something from the 80's to death when the country crumbles around us right here in 2013. Look in the mirror.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 7:53 PM
  • -- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 7:49 PM

    Keep thinking I'm wrong - you'll note that has never bothered me either.

    The US did not provide "chemical weapons" to Iraq. Chemical WEAPONS?

    Source - although it's obvious yours are biased - Huff Post maybe?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 7:54 PM
  • Thanks Wheels. With Spaniard it's always Bush - and now he's backing up to Reagan.

    Spaniard - what did James Madison think about Iraq and chemical weapons? It's about as relevant as Reagan.

    Now let's talk about that Acorn attorney you voted for twice - Barack Obama.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 7:55 PM
  • "Then it must have been decreasing consistently for the past 5 years."

    I take it neither logic nor economics are your strong suit.

    The last five years would be 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, since we are only half-way through 2013 and solid GDP numbers are available only for the first quarter thereof.

    The GDP growth numbers for those years are:

    2008: - 0.3%

    2009: - 3.1%

    2010: + 2.4%

    2011: + 1.8%

    2012: + 2.2%

    Thus, it has not been consistent, either in increase or decrease, for the past five years.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 9:00 AM
  • "The US was the ONLY UN Security Council member who voted against a condemnation of Iraq's use of chem weapons. The only one. I would call that "defending"."

    I wouldn't. Not condemning is not the same as defending, just as not increasing is not the same as decreasing...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 9:07 AM
  • Government spending is a component of GDP, so when government spending increases, GDP can, as well. However, it is merely one component and, if the increase in spending is not sufficient to overcome decreases in other sectors, GDP decreases overall.

    Also, it is generally recognized that the money spent by government has a negative effect on other factors of the economy, tending to drive them downwards and thus diminish the impact government spending has on overall GDP.

    In a mild recession, increasing government spending can be sufficient to drive GDP into the 'positive' column. However, in a more serious downturn, it may dampen the drive into negative values, but it is unlikely to be sufficient to overcome it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 9:33 AM
  • -- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 8:08 AM

    Why would I read your source document? You made your points. Now for the hardest part for you:

    Source please... you continue to ignore your statement that the US gave CHEMICAL WEAPONS to Iraq.

    Cat got your tongue?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 9:53 AM
  • The general formula for GDP is quite simple:

    GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

    The problem lies more in the accumulation of data than in the actual calculation. 30 days after the end of a quarter, the initial report is issued. 30 days after that, the first revised report, and 30 days after that, the final report. 30 days after that, we begin the cycle for the next quarter. When all four quarters are in, the annual report is calculated. All of these can be revised later, and usually are, as new data is available.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 9:58 AM
  • When I was a younger man, we used to use Gross National Product (GNP) as the measure of health. Now we tend to use Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

    The difference is geographical. GDP measures only that produced within a nation's borders, while GNP measures that product which a nation owns, which would include production occurring overseas buy owned by Americans.

    I do not know why the switch was made, though I suspect GDP is a better measure of a nation's internal economic health, as GNP could be influenced by heavy U.S. investment in a robust nation, even as our own economy falters.

    I suspect that GDP gives an earlier indication of economic decline or increase than GNP, for that reason, and that is why it is more commonly used today.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 10:07 AM
  • -- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 9:58 AM

    You screwed up and you are now going to be held to the "Spaniard Standard" of hypocrisy and arrogance.

    WHERE in your sources can you back up your claim that the US gave chemical WEAPONS to Iraq?

    You can't and you're proving by you personal attacks.

    Source please... we are all waiting.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 10:07 AM
  • Nah, the vote in the security council, after providing Iraq with chem weapons is all I need. -- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 7:49 PM

    "providing Iraq with chem WEAPONS".

    Source please.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 10:12 AM
  • Spaniard doesn't know that anthrax isn't a chemical WEAPON. Anthrax is a naturally occurring compound and can be transferred from animals. It is not a weapon - until weaponized.

    We didn't sell them chemical weapons Spaniard. Not a single one.

    Comprehension, as usual, is not your strong suit. Not even your own source - which I read last night - backs you up on that.

    Source please... or you are wrong or lying. Which is it?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 10:18 AM
  • Reagan didn't. He defended Saddam's use of chem weapons on civilians." "Defended" does not mean "give." - Posted by Spaniard on Sun, Jul 7, 2013, at 9:44 AM

    Now you're contradicting yourself. Defend doesn't mean give and then you claim the US gave chemical weapons to Iraq. Again with the comprehension problem. It's huge with you - your bias blinds you and even your own words contradict you.

    ============================

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 10:27 AM
  • "We provided Iraq with chemicals and chemical weapons. I have already proved it. Not my fault you have such terrible reading comprehension."

    Actually, we provided them with 'dual use' technology, some of which found its way into Iraq's chemical weapons programme. Germany followed suit, as the 1980 overthrow of the Shah of Iran led to a dramatic shift in policy to counter the rise of 'militant Islam' in the region. Saddam, being generally a secular leader whose government was not populated with radical religious officials, was seen as a sort of bulwark against the tide that was flowing there.

    Whether or not we 'defended' the programme, turned a blind eye to it, or actively promoted it is still subject to debate. Our condemnation of the programme came primarily after Saddam turned the weapons on his own people, rather than against the armies of Iran.

    I suspect that Mr. Reagan's acceptance of the idea that all is fair in love an war prevented him from being overly appalled by the use of such weapons on the battlefield. After all, many of his generation who lived through World War II and the Great War accepted the idea that war is a horrible but necessary thing. The U.S. committed many acts in World War II that would be considered 'atrocities' today, such as the bombing of Dresden. Indeed, the Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are seem as 'atrocities' by the younger generation, though staunchly defended by the majority of those of 'greatest generation'.

    I do not know whether Mr. Reagan condoned, supported, or defended the chemical weapons programme in Iraq, and the links provided rely heavily on speculation. Spaniard's comments appear to echo those of NPR's Alex Chadwick and Mike Schuster. However, Mr. Schuster notes that the Reagan Administration provided little more than battlefield intelligence directly, and that the military aid was recieved primarily through non-government sources, aided by the administration's relaxing of restrictions on the export of technology. Thus, the claim that Reagan 'armed' the Iraqis with such weaponry appears to be wrong, though it could possibly be said that he 'allowed the arming' of Iraq with such weapons indirectly.

    To say that he condoned the gassing of women and children is equally flawed, since the evidence seems to support the idea that his defense of such weapons, if it existed, was limited to their use on the battlefield against Iranian soldiers, intellegence on whose movement we provided. As noted, the U.S. condemned the use of such weapons when they were turned against Saddam's own citizens.

    ______________

    Much of the 'blame game' appears specious, at best. If the technology was allowed to be shipped, that is not tantamount to condoning its use, nor its misuse, in warfare and oppression. That would be akin to saying those who sell pressure cookers and ball bearings condoned the Boston Marathon bombing, or were complicit therewith.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 10:51 AM
  • Given that Iran also was reported to have a chemical weapons programme, providing Iraq, as a possible ally, with the technology to counter chemical and biological agents would seem logical. That such technology can also be used to produce such agents is a calculated risk in providing it.

    The question of 'who started it' might not have been clear at the time.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 10:59 AM
  • It's a stone cold fact that we aided and abetted a war criminal who used WMD on civilians. -- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:31 PM

    Quit changing the subject. No one has said we didn't aid Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran. Who said we didn't? We did.

    =======================================

    Rumsfeld couldn't wait to arrange the sales.-- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:34 PM

    I gave you two direct PUBLIC quotes the US made against Iraq condemning its use of chemical weapons. Two. What did someone post above? "I am really very sorry you are not a better reader."

    Physician heal thyself.

    ========================================

    You've never provided a single source to back up your claim - not one - that the US gave Iraq chemical WEAPONS. The US didn't- you are again wrong. What did someone post above? "You choose to remain ignorant."

    ========================================

    Bottom line? The US did not provide chemical WEAPONS (your words) to Iraq. Period.

    The US did publicly condemn Iraqs use of chemical weapons - twice. Not what anyone would call "defending" (your words) Iraqs use.

    Nobody said we didn't provide support and arms to Iraq - another straw man to deflect from your previous mistakes.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:44 PM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:45 PM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:46 PM
  • "Rumsfeld couldn't wait to arrange the sales."

    More speculation on your part...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:46 PM
  • Rumsfeld couldn't wait to arrange the sales.-- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:46 PM

    So 2 public quotes condemning Iraq get beat by your unsubstantiated personal opinion.

    Your arrogance knows no bounds. Now provide just ONE quote where we gave them chemical WEAPONS or another where we "couldn't wait to arrange the sales".

    You've got nothing and you're looking bad. Quit while you're behind.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:49 PM
  • Pure speculation again.

    Why did he - Rumsfeld - PUBLICLY condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons?

    Now you sound like a conspiracy theorist!

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:56 PM
  • Rummy couldn't wait to sell Saddam dangerous CHEMICALS that the US knew were headed for use as WMD. -- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:55 PM

    Now you've contradicted yourself. From a strong claim that the US sent them chemical WEAPONS to "chemicals". No weapons?

    You never have been taken serious with this. More wild left-wing conspiracy theories and then a big backtrack on your part.

    Like I said - quit while you're behind.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 2:59 PM
  • Keep backtracking. Everyone is watching. You made a smart-*** claim about the US giving chemical WEAPONS to Iraq. It never happened, you were proven wrong and now you've downgraded that to "chemicals". You can't deny it. It's all right here in the scary SO archives - your own words.

    You claimed the US defended Iraq and I gave you two direct public quotes where the Reagan administration condemned them. Not defend them - wrong again.

    If you seriously don't know the difference between "mustard" and "mustard gas" that has been weaponized and put on a bomb I can't help you. I definitely wouldn't want to eat a cheeseburger at your house.

    I would love to have a $1 for every time you've hit google today desperately searching for something to back up your chemical WEAPONS claim. I'd be rich. Keep googling... you'll find some remote leftist conspiracy theory web site somewhere to back up your baseless personal opinion.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 3:09 PM
  • Keep backtracking. Everyone is watching. You made a smart-*** claim about the US giving chemical WEAPONS to Iraq. It never happened, you were proven wrong and now you've downgraded that to "chemicals". You can't deny it. It's all right here in the scary SO archives - your own words.

    You claimed the US defended Iraq and I gave you two direct public quotes where the Reagan administration condemned them. Not defend them - wrong again.

    If you seriously don't know the difference between "mustard" and "mustard gas" that has been weaponized and put on a bomb I can't help you. I definitely wouldn't want to eat a cheeseburger at your house.

    I would love to have a $1 for every time you've hit google today desperately searching for something to back up your chemical WEAPONS claim. I'd be rich. Keep googling... you'll find some remote leftist conspiracy theory web site somewhere to back up your baseless personal opinion.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 3:09 PM
  • "Why was he sent? Why would a former CEO of Searle chemical and Reagan admin ambassador at large be chosen specifically for this meeting???"

    Probably because of his resume:

    "Rumsfeld served as the 13th Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford,...

    Rumsfeld was a four-term U.S. Congressman from Illinois (1962--1969), Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (1969--1970), Counsellor to the President (1969--1973), the United States Permanent Representative to NATO (1973--1974), and White House Chief of Staff (1974--1975).

    ...In February 1973, Rumsfeld left Washington to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium. He served as the United States' Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Council and the Defense Planning Committee, and the Nuclear Planning Group. In this capacity, he represented the United States in wide-ranging military and diplomatic matters, and was asked to help mediate a conflict on behalf of the United States between Cyprus and Turkey."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 3:10 PM
  • "Despite the fact that State and CIA knew chem and bio weapons were being used by Iraq, Reagan takes Iraq off terror watch list, restores diplomatic relations by sending Rummy to hang with Saddam, and then suspends US Commerce Dept restrictions on dangerous chemical and bio weapons components even though our own intelligence warned against doing so."

    As I pointed out already, the overthrow of the Shah (our prior friend in the region) changed the nature of game. The enemy of our enemy is our friend, the saying goes, and Saddam at least was not a part of the radical Islam movement, which threatened what little stability there was in the region.

    We gave Iran nukes, as a part of the Atoms for Peace initiative on Mr. Eisenhower's watch. Way back then, when we saw nuclear power as a way of producing electricity "too cheap to meter", we were happy to have nuclear plants cropping up all over the world: nuclear plants built and maintained by U.S. companies, naturally. Babcock and Wilcox, Westinghouse, General Electric, etc., were all on board to make lots of money building nuclear facilities in places such as Iran.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/Shah_of_Iran_building_two_nuclear_...

    Of course, that was back in the good ol' days, when we thought that having American corporations making profits through at home and abroad was a good idea. But, we were so much older then, we're younger than that now...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 3:21 PM
  • Shapley, I agree about the good old days [I think] when government supported American oil companies and nuclear energy technologies worldwide to make the U.S. a stronger financial power in support of national security.

    When the export of superior technical programs and know-how became for political purpose and campaign financing, I believe this is when we left the good old days.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I think I threw out the idea previously that GNP or GDP depended on what the powers that be want us to hear. I put little stock in government made up numbers and for the life of me can't figure how the so called top money people and firms can be so persuaded by the constant announcements coming for D.C.

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 5:24 PM
  • Dug is getting nervous, he double posted again.

    -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 5:35 PM
  • lefty - is that all you have?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM
  • Obama's "red line". Notice the words "my".

    "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change MY calculus. That would change MY equation.

    In a situation this volatile, I wouldn't say that I am absolutely confident. What I'm saying is we're monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that THAT'S A RED LINE FOR US and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change MY calculations significantly."

    Obama today?

    "I didn't set a red line, the world set a red line,"

    "My credibility's not on the line."

    "America and Congress's credibility is on the line "

    "We may not be directly imminently threatened by what's taking place in a Kosovo or a Syria or a Rawanda in the short-term but our long-term national security will be impacted in a profound way and our humanity's impacted in a profound way."

    Clearly he's off the teleprompter in the last comment. He's groping for straws.

    And there it is - the Acorn attorney / inexperienced president twisting himself into knots. Hitler would be proud to have a propagandist like him - and his followers.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Sep 4, 2013, at 10:41 AM
  • Anone remember Madam Defarge from a Tale of Two Cities? I hope she is able to keep up with Obama's lies while doing her knitting.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 4, 2013, at 10:49 AM

Respond to this thread