Evangelical Disconnect

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Funny how two guys from the oil business get into the Whitehouse and all the countries they attack or plan to attack have oil or access to oil. Pure coincidence, I am sure.So, if not for the oil, we'd leave them alone, I guess. To train more terrorists after they killed 3000 New Yorkers.

So, if not for the oil, we'd leave them alone, I guess. To train more terrorists after they killed 3000 New Yorkers.
If you oppress people all over the world then you have to expect that a few will occasionally fight back. It's the price of doing business and nothing to get worked up over.

If you oppress people all over the world then you have to expect that a few will occasionally fight back. It's the price of doing business and nothing to get worked up over.If we'e oppressing Egypt and Saudi Arabia, why are they our allies? me::D Bro Deal::o :confused: :o :confused: :o :confused:

If we'e oppressing Egypt and Saudi Arabia, why are they our allies? me::D Bro Deal::o :confused: :o :confused: :o :confused:
Wow. You really are that dumb.

remember, when the afghanis were fighting the soviets they were noble freedom fighters. now when the same scenario has the us in the sights they are conveniently labled by the commercial media as insurgents explicitly and muslims by implication....I say, I did not know the Afghanis had a terror group attack the Soviet Union first, like Finland did in 1939. Thank you for clearing up that fact with your comparison.

If you oppress people all over the world then you have to expect that a few will occasionally fight back. It's the price of doing business and nothing to get worked up over.
I agree... It's nothing to get worked up about. Thats why several well placed nukes would not be anything to get worked up about. Of course, the downside of nukes placed there would be the damage enviromentally to the oil fields. That would be a shame.

If we'e oppressing Egypt and Saudi Arabia, why are they our allies? me::D Bro Deal::o :confused: :o :confused: :o :confused:Yes... the ruling royal family of Saudi Arabia are allies of the US. America doesn't think it is worth standing up for freedom and democracy in Saudi Arabia since 99.9% of the populace hate America's guts.

I agree... It's nothing to get worked up about. Thats why several well placed nukes would not be anything to get worked up about. Of course, the downside of nukes placed there would be the damage enviromentally to the oil fields. That would be a shame.
It's always nice when the conservative whackos crawl out of the woodwork and masturbate over their thoughts of commiting crimes against humanity. World War II was supposed the end fascism. To bad it took root in America.

It's always nice when the conservative whackos crawl out of the woodwork and masturbate over their thoughts of commiting crimes against humanity. World War II was supposed the end fascism. To bad it took root in America.

But isn't the death of people just the cost of doing business? Who said that?
Whacko ??? Interesting. This is coming from a guy who life is posting on a cycling forum. I think you need to get a life outside the computer.

Yes... the ruling royal family of Saudi Arabia are allies of the US. America doesn't think it is worth standing up for freedom and democracy in Saudi Arabia since 99.9% of the populace hate America's guts.Should the US tell other countries what governments they are to have? Did someone say something about "endless war"?

I suppose the hijackers wanted to establish a liberal democracy? Perhaps they belonged to the Green party?

If you oppress people all over the world then you have to expect that a few will occasionally fight back. It's the price of doing business and nothing to get worked up over.Ahh. the "Superpower as Scapegoat" syndrome.

Ahh. the "Superpower as Scapegoat" syndrome.
Of course the U.S. is at no fault at all. All those people in countries with dictators, monarchs, and authoritarian governments funded and propped up by the U.S. government should not hold the U.S. accountable. Freedom is only for Americans. That's the main plank of the goosesteppers who worship the Republican Party these days.

But isn't the death of people just the cost of doing business? Who said that?
It is when you are running an empire. Most countries don't want to be empires. They are content to be left alone. But that is sort of hard when there are nutters in America who fantasize about murdering millions with nuclear weapons because those people resent living under the thumb of the U.S.

Should the US tell other countries what governments they are to have? Did someone say something about "endless war"?

I suppose the hijackers wanted to establish a liberal democracy? Perhaps they belonged to the Green party?As is evident from your post... you have no clue about the motivations of the hijackers. Before you can fight an enemy... you need to understand them. That was very frustrating in the aftermath of 9/11... that the whole response/analysis of what happened on 9/11 was so deranged and also influenced by hidden Neocon agendas. And the US people, media and politicians just lapped up anything they were told. The whole effort IMO helped the cause of Islamic radicalism ("terrorism" is just a method/strategy of fighting) rather than combated it. Then the American people were faced with the paradox of being labeled traitors if they spoke up against the arguably fascist actions of the government. Free speech and liberty my ass. It was almost the return of McCarthyism. And further Americans were asked to die for a faulty cause... otherwise the others who had died would have died for nothing (and the government would have to admit they made a mistake and a black mark would be permanently etched on a President's legacy). The actions followed the President's consistent credo: a mistake is only a mistake if you admit to it. Remember Vietnam?

What about the US response to France and Germany's reluctance to endorse the Iraq invasion? What a bunch of tossers the French and Germans were to not be as gullible and irrational as the loudest American fist-pumpers.

The irony is that you will probably deduce that these views make me an "enemy" sympathizer. From my perspective... I see the militant right wing of the US as inadvertently helping the cause of militant Islamics and a major threat to world peace and stabilty. And I consider myself a believer in free enterprise, small government and the principles that the US was founded on.

As is evident from your post... you have no clue about the motivations of the hijackers. Before you can fight an enemy... you need to understand them. That was very frustrating in the aftermath of 9/11... that the whole response/analysis of what happened on 9/11 was so deranged and also influenced by hidden Neocon agendas. And the US people, media and politicians just lapped up anything they were told. The whole effort IMO helped the cause of Islamic radicalism ("terrorism" is just a method/strategy of fighting) rather than combated it. Then the American people were faced with the paradox of being labeled traitors if they spoke up against the arguably fascist actions of the government. Free speech and liberty my ass. It was almost the return of McCarthyism. And further Americans were asked to die for a faulty cause... otherwise the others who had died would have died for nothing (and the government would have to admit they made a mistake and a black mark would be permanently etched on a President's legacy). The actions followed the President's consistent credo: a mistake is only a mistake if you admit to it. Remember Vietnam?

What about the US response to France and Germany's reluctance to endorse the Iraq invasion? What a bunch of tossers the French and Germans were to not be as gullible and irrational as the loudest American fist-pumpers.

The irony is that you will probably deduce that these views make me an "enemy" sympathizer. From my perspective... I see the militant right wing of the US as inadvertently helping the cause of militant Islamics and a major threat to world peace and stabilty. And I consider myself a believer in free enterprise, small government and the principles that the US was founded on.

Agreed.

As is evident from your post... you have no clue about the motivations of the hijackers. Before you can fight an enemy... you need to understand them. That was very frustrating in the aftermath of 9/11... that the whole response/analysis of what happened on 9/11 was so deranged and also influenced by hidden Neocon agendas. And the US people, media and politicians just lapped up anything they were told. The whole effort IMO helped the cause of Islamic radicalism ("terrorism" is just a method/strategy of fighting) rather than combated it. Then the American people were faced with the paradox of being labeled traitors if they spoke up against the arguably fascist actions of the government. Free speech and liberty my ass. It was almost the return of McCarthyism. And further Americans were asked to die for a faulty cause... otherwise the others who had died would have died for nothing (and the government would have to admit they made a mistake and a black mark would be permanently etched on a President's legacy). The actions followed the President's consistent credo: a mistake is only a mistake if you admit to it. Remember Vietnam?

What about the US response to France and Germany's reluctance to endorse the Iraq invasion? What a bunch of tossers the French and Germans were to not be as gullible and irrational as the loudest American fist-pumpers.

The irony is that you will probably deduce that these views make me an "enemy" sympathizer. From my perspective... I see the militant right wing of the US as inadvertently helping the cause of militant Islamics and a major threat to world peace and stabilty. And I consider myself a believer in free enterprise, small government and the principles that the US was founded on.I agree with a lot of what you're saying...but I chafe a bit at the idea that all other nations are somehow more altruistic or have nobler intentions or whatever. France had their oil deals that kept them from wanting any part of deposing Saddam Hussein...the UN was involved in serious corruption over Oil For Food, involving officials from different countries, who were influencing their nations' policies...everyone is doing what suits them and profits them.

It just happens that America has a lot more power and ability to affect other countries... and I am not defending those policies. I'm just poking a little pin in the bubble of all the happy good countries that only do what's right for the world...:rolleyes: (not that you are saying that necessarily, I'm just making a general statement)

It is when you are running an empire. Most countries don't want to be empires. They are content to be left alone. But that is sort of hard when there are nutters in America who fantasize about murdering millions with nuclear weapons because those people resent living under the thumb of the U.S.
Bro, you act as if the world would just be one big happy place with all people living in joy and contentment if it just weren't for the United States...

I agree with a lot of what you're saying...but I chafe a bit at the idea that all other nations are somehow more altruistic or have nobler intentions or whatever. France had their oil deals that kept them from wanting any part of deposing Saddam Hussein...the UN was involved in serious corruption over Oil For Food, involving officials from different countries, who were influencing their nations' policies...everyone is doing what suits them and profits them.

It just happens that America has a lot more power and ability to affect other countries... and I am not defending those policies. I'm just poking a little pin in the bubble of all the happy good countries that only do what's right for the world...:rolleyes: (not that you are saying that necessarily, I'm just making a general statement)I'm not really saying that other countries are more altruistic. They all act in their own self interest. My argument is that the US IMHO is often acting against their own best interests... while they think they are acting for them. I think a lot of America thinks it can give the middle finger to the rest of the world... but don't realise the full negative impact of acting unilaterally, often with an FU attitude.

I'm not really saying that other countries are more altruistic. They all act in their own self interest. My argument is that the US IMHO is often acting against their own best interests... while they think they are acting for them. I think a lot of America thinks it can give the middle finger to the rest of the world... but don't realise the full negative impact of acting unilaterally, often with an FU attitude.
No, I appreciate your opinion and have thought a lot about your perspective on different things, which is interesting to me because you've lived in different parts of the world INCLUDING here...and you don't even hate us ;).

I'm not even disagreeing with you. I'm just saying there's a bit of an assumed stance on this forum (not you specifically, I was just responding to your post) that the US is all bad and everybody else is just swell...or that the reasons other countries were against the idea of war is just because they're so "progressive" or something instead of that their vested interests, including OIL interests, were in not going to war. Not because they want to hold hands with Obama and sing give peace a chance and put a flower in the barrel of a gun.

Which is a separate thing from whether or not it was in America's interest to go to war.

And also, the "moral equivalency" stuff gets old...I mean, someone starts a thread about organ harvesting in China and immediately gets slapped by someone who seems to believe an American has no right to comment on such a thing, because of...Iraq. ??? It's tiresome.

No, I appreciate your opinion and have thought a lot about your perspective on different things, which is interesting to me because you've lived in different parts of the world INCLUDING here...and you don't even hate us ;).

I'm not even disagreeing with you. I'm just saying there's a bit of an assumed stance on this forum (not you specifically, I was just responding to your post) that the US is all bad and everybody else is just swell...or that the reasons other countries were against the idea of war is just because they're so "progressive" or something instead of that their vested interests, including OIL interests, were in not going to war. Not because they want to hold hands with Obama and sing give peace a chance and put a flower in the barrel of a gun.

Which is a separate thing from whether or not it was in America's interest to go to war.

And also, the "moral equivalency" stuff gets old...I mean, someone starts a thread about organ harvesting in China and immediately gets slapped by someone who seems to believe an American has no right to comment on such a thing, because of...Iraq. ??? It's tiresome.Good points.

The Iraq preemptive strike is perhaps used as a banner issue by the rest of the world... but the actions where the rest of the world perceives the US as arrogant go beyond that. However a major element underlying people's frustration IMO is their feeling of impotence that America can act unilaterally and dominate world politics.

The mistake for the US I think is that they are looking backwards at their military superiority as the ultimate trump card... and I think that is not going to be as significant an advantage in the future. Whatever the powers-that-be want on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (to retain the staus quo of their superiority)... in 30 years nuclear weapons will be like rifles were in the 19th century... practically ubiquitous IMO.

And conventional military action is difficult when the enemy is not a country.