BuffettNews.com

iuparrothead wrote: But... how did this thread turn to a Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Bush administration bashing thread? That's irrelevent to the current problems in Paris and all of France.

Just go back and reread the post. It is not hard to see the French hating people here in America. Bill and Rush are the two biggest people behind the movement here. Ever since the French decided not to go to war with us, people have hated them. I still do not see why. It was their right not to go to war with us.

iuparrothead wrote:

Sam wrote:

aeroparrot wrote:The French should have seen this coming by the way they treat minorities. I am not saying that the riots should have happened but those involved have been trying to integrate as what the French have wanted to but have been denied a lot of things because they don't "look French" so they said enough. That is all I am going to say about this.

Aren't the French suppose to be quite liberal in the way they treat others? I mean other than the ones that are of the belief of "French First" such as certian people are up in parts of Canada.....???

aeroparrot is right on & no, the French are not 'liberal' in the same context we use that term here in the U.S. (If you've been there for even a day, you would understand) Racism is rampant throughout Europe, but it is particularly bad in certain areas of Germany, France and Spain... especially to displaced Muslims of African or Eastern Mediterranean descent. It's a global issue that no nation has control of. Despite what some European countries attempt to portray, there is nowhere where all ethnicities exist in harmony.

But... how did this thread turn to a Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Bush administration bashing thread? That's irrelevent to the current problems in Paris and all of France.

I agree with aeroparrot that they are not. He clearly pointed out, as you just didm that they are not. But I do think most people in America, if polled, might percieve France in such a way.

I can't say that every French person I have met was arrogant and seemed to have "superiority attitude" or were "a tad bit stuck up", but I have met several that did. I have met some that were very friendly kind and warm pleasant helpful people.

I also agree with your statement about racism in Europe. A few years ago the UK was having trouble with young muslims rioting but managed to keep it contained for the most part. Probably still do have probs.

As far as hijacking the thread into bashing Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh... just consider the one's posting such comments....that says it all.

Lightning Bolt wrote:

ph4ever wrote:IMHO it's really bigoted to hate a person beacuse of where they were born. It's just as bigoted as hating someone because of the color of their skin. People jump over a certain poster because of his bigotry towards blacks yet have no problem bashing the French. I ask you - what's the difference? It's all bigotry to me. And I know the people of BN that have French ancestry are offended by these bashing threads.

Well said, Connie
It's ridiculous... and truly indicative of how misinformed and, as a result, polarized
we become as a society. It's tolerated at first because of one's choice of political leaning, conservative or progressive, and then allowed to grow because
we, somehow, have to insult the opposing "team" as a method of gaining, what we think should be, moral superiority.
It usually happens as a replacement for an argument of any substance, and we know who practices it here.
And with certain others here, yes, I know... I do it, too.

You and Connie have the makings of very good global citizens, LB!

captainjoe wrote:

iuparrothead wrote: But... how did this thread turn to a Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Bush administration bashing thread? That's irrelevent to the current problems in Paris and all of France.

Just go back and reread the post. It is not hard to see the French hating people here in America. Bill and Rush are the two biggest people behind the movement here. Ever since the French decided not to go to war with us, people have hated them. I still do not see why. It was their right not to go to war with us.

A tad bit oversimplistic and narrow here, aren't we?

iuparrothead wrote:

captainjoe wrote:

iuparrothead wrote: But... how did this thread turn to a Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Bush administration bashing thread? That's irrelevent to the current problems in Paris and all of France.

Just go back and reread the post. It is not hard to see the French hating people here in America. Bill and Rush are the two biggest people behind the movement here. Ever since the French decided not to go to war with us, people have hated them. I still do not see why. It was their right not to go to war with us.

A tad bit oversimplistic and narrow here, aren't we?

Not at all. Just watch The Factor or listen to Rush when they bring up France. Millions of people in America listen to them everyday and follow what they say. Of course there are other causes of this hatred, but you can't dismiss the contributions of Bill and Rush.

captainjoe wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:

captainjoe wrote:

iuparrothead wrote: But... how did this thread turn to a Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Bush administration bashing thread? That's irrelevent to the current problems in Paris and all of France.

Just go back and reread the post. It is not hard to see the French hating people here in America. Bill and Rush are the two biggest people behind the movement here. Ever since the French decided not to go to war with us, people have hated them. I still do not see why. It was their right not to go to war with us.

A tad bit oversimplistic and narrow here, aren't we?

Not at all. Just watch The Factor or listen to Rush when they bring up France. Millions of people in America listen to them everyday and follow what they say. Of course there are other causes of this hatred, but you can't dismiss the contributions of Bill and Rush.

Just what are you saying here.... that two individual commentators control the masses??? That these two individuals have more influence than mainstream media?

I did go back and reread the WHOLE THREAD....perhaps you should try it, before you make such an easily shot down comment.

The closest I saw in this thread to bashing France, was a statement and only one sentence that I made. (and someone else stating they would not have anymore French wine and cheeses) that France had not surrendered to these thugs and punks as of yet. Gee is that bashing France? Because of Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh? Please remind me to thank them. Besides I have not listened or watched either of them in while.

Actually there are people still alive that can actually REMEMBER that France is considered to be an ALLIE. There are people alive that still REMEMBER, that Americans died and lost arms, legs, eyes, flesh, sweat and shed blood, and lives, freeing France from the Nazis, and many Americans still remain buried there. France is a member of NATO. There are people that REMEMBER America went to Vietnam because of the French. There are people alive that REMEMBER people were killed when France refused to allow U.S. aircraft to overfly their airspace in a raid on Libya.
Oh yeah one other little item about France..... anyone remember the tax and boycott of/on French wines a few years ago....?
Etc Etc, Etc.,

Seems to me ( I can't say your name it might get deleted and edited out ) your attitude, as stated earlier, is really a simplistic and idealogical one and the only one that seemingly matters to you and like minded individuals, and not based in any factual data, nor quite new or of use, other than to bash people that hold different views than yours and are totally irrevelant to the discussion.

I think it is absurd to say "The French." I have a few French friends and they are great people. That’s like saying, “…The Americans.” Look around to the North and the South and the Mid-states and the West of America. Do you know how different all of us are??! I go down to my brother’s house in S.C. and it’s a different world compared to the D.C. area.

Granted, I hate going to Paris (because it’s just a BIG city) but remember that Grenoble is different than Strasbourg or Marsalis…

I wanted to clarify my views as being seen from the "minority" point of view. I think I am one of the few non-whites who listen to Buffett (not sure if this is true but I think it may be) so my views on why the riots happened in France are based on that.

captainjoe wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:

captainjoe wrote:

iuparrothead wrote: But... how did this thread turn to a Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Bush administration bashing thread? That's irrelevent to the current problems in Paris and all of France.

Just go back and reread the post. It is not hard to see the French hating people here in America. Bill and Rush are the two biggest people behind the movement here. Ever since the French decided not to go to war with us, people have hated them. I still do not see why. It was their right not to go to war with us.

A tad bit oversimplistic and narrow here, aren't we?

Not at all. Just watch The Factor or listen to Rush when they bring up France. Millions of people in America listen to them everyday and follow what they say. Of course there are other causes of this hatred, but you can't dismiss the contributions of Bill and Rush.

Do you really understand why Bill and Rush criticize France? First, it's not France they criticize... it's Jacques Chirac & associates. It is not simply because Chirac chose not to send troops to Iraq in support of the US efforts to remove Saddam Hussein and the Batthist party. Chirac and most of the French politicians that support him are crooked. Chirac was right in the middle of the Oil for Food scandal. He and associates made many crooked deals with Saddam and has made similar deals in Iran to secure oil and subsequently lots and lots of money for France. It's not as simple as "It was their right not to go to war with us". Chirac didn't want to bite the hand that was feeding him.

Scan this Washington Times article (of which is not, by any means, a conservative paper) http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20 ... -2031r.htm

I'm genuinely not trying to lecture you, but put your own bias and naivity aside for a minute and investigate a bit further on French policy in the Middle East, before you spout off uninformed opinions. When you oversimplify and follow the impressions of mainstream than you are doing the same as those you criticize.

aeroparrot wrote:The French should have seen this coming by the way they treat minorities. I am not saying that the riots should have happened but those involved have been trying to integrate as what the French have wanted to but have been denied a lot of things because they don't "look French" so they said enough. That is all I am going to say about this.

The French have practically handed over their country to the Moslems....they're reaping it now.

IrishG wrote:

aeroparrot wrote:The French should have seen this coming by the way they treat minorities. I am not saying that the riots should have happened but those involved have been trying to integrate as what the French have wanted to but have been denied a lot of things because they don't "look French" so they said enough. That is all I am going to say about this.

The French have practically handed over their country to the Moslems....they're reaping it now.

Actually it is not just the French and not now.

The French had a noticeable increase in terror attacks after refusing America to overfly their airspace in the attack on Libya.

Russia has been having trouble with radical Muslim extremists for many years. Chechnya ring a bell?

England/the U.K. had problems a few years ago as have other European nations. Just seems like that France is having the worst of it so far and has to pay the dues.

Meanwhile everyone that cares to, comes down against the U.S. and President Bush, and PM Tony Blair for standing up to these self serving maniacal thugs.....Yet none have any other reasonable/realistic or acceptable solution to offer....

I'm not sure if we should equate the terrorists being hunted in the war on terror to the Muslim population in Europe that is being discriminated against. That's a bit of a generalization.

iuparrothead wrote:I'm not sure if we should equate the terrorists being hunted in the war on terror to the Muslim population in Europe that is being discriminated against. That's a bit of a generalization.

The point being is not all Muslims are rioting and not all Mislims are terrorist. If you got the all Muslims are terrorists out of that then you go back read it it again I did SPECIFY radical Muslim extremists

That in no way means every Muslim in the world is a terrorist, but it would be an idiotic thing to say that the terrs are not Muslims. They are, Muslim,They are radical, and They arer extremist. I really do not need the qualifier in here about there are different type of Muslims, do I ?

Sam wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:I'm not sure if we should equate the terrorists being hunted in the war on terror to the Muslim population in Europe that is being discriminated against. That's a bit of a generalization.

The point being is not all Muslims are rioting and not all Mislims are terrorist. If you got the all Muslims are terrorists out of that then you go back read it it again I did SPECIFY radical Muslim extremists

That in no way means every Muslim in the world is a terrorist, but it would be an idiotic thing to say that the terrs are not Muslims. They are, Muslim,They are radical, and They arer extremist. I really do not need the qualifier in here about there are different type of Muslims, do I ?

Yikes, Sam. Once again, no need to be so hypersensitive. You were specific about radical Muslim terrorists in Russia, but your statement about Pres. Bush and PM Blair & self-serving maniacal thugs was a bit broad.

I wasn't attacking you, just commenting.

(Methinks you have a lot of great things to say, but if you were't so incredibly defensive all the time, then people wouldn't jump on you as they do.)

iuparrothead wrote:

Sam wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:I'm not sure if we should equate the terrorists being hunted in the war on terror to the Muslim population in Europe that is being discriminated against. That's a bit of a generalization.

The point being is not all Muslims are rioting and not all Mislims are terrorist. If you got the all Muslims are terrorists out of that then you go back read it it again I did SPECIFY radical Muslim extremists

That in no way means every Muslim in the world is a terrorist, but it would be an idiotic thing to say that the terrs are not Muslims. They are, Muslim,They are radical, and They arer extremist. I really do not need the qualifier in here about there are different type of Muslims, do I ?

Yikes, Sam. Once again, no need to be so hypersensitive. You were specific about radical Muslim terrorists in Russia, but your statement about Pres. Bush and PM Blair & self-serving maniacal thugs was a bit broad.

I wasn't attacking you, just commenting.

(Methinks you have a lot of great things to say, but if you were't so incredibly defensive all the time, then people wouldn't jump on you as they do.)

My apologies,if sounding hyper sensitive, just I have been round and round and round again, with people that ....refuse to understand when one says radical Muslim extremist they only hear the word Muslim.
My apologies to you.

I have asked people numerous times for realistic and viable options. I still have not heard any better or a plausible/viable option on dealing with the terrorists/terrs. They are terrorists not insurgents. Calling them insurgents leads to them having some sort of credibility.
If one would bother to look at the war on terrorism in depth and get away from the WMD or whatever deal and look beyond.....
There were no viable targets left in Afghanistan.The U.S.S.R bombed them back to the stone age, several times over the years they were there.
We still have troops in Afghanistan.

The war in Iraq, serves multipurpose and among other things. We needed a place to fight them. We did not want to fight them on American soil. ( one has no idea of that could lead with the mininum of Marshall Law, and many other things) One can look at the ground in Afghanistan and look at what happened to the U.S.S.R. or perhaps the British. Look at the terrain.
We needed a reason to go into Iraq and draw the terrs into there. ( Perhaps no one in Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. It does not matter. There are many terrs there now. We could not just send them an RSVP for tea and scones and lunch or cordially invite them to all meet at such such and such coordinates to meet Allah.
Removing Saddam is a good thing. Not many deny that.
Stabilizing Iraq and turning it into a free society will do more to stabilize the whole Middle East and World situation than anything else that has been in the recent or near or perhaps even far past.

We went into this being told it would be a long drawn out conflict, going through various stages, and most unlike any war ever been fought in History.

What about the people of Iraq some ask... well what about American Citizens here in America....would you rather fight them here? In our cities and streets? Power blackouts? Limited fuel, food, and other supplies?
They can't get to America? they are already here, they made at least TWO attacks, and at least one known that was disrupted and busted.

Yes I feel for the peole who have loved ones over there and all of our troops that given their lives, been maimed and all the sacrifices they make everyday that we never even dream about. Yes I feel for the Iraqi people too, but I also feel that eventually the Iraqi people while suffering now, are better off than they were under Saddam and a brighter future ahead.

As for France,Chechnya,UK, etc....it could just as easily be happening here, but for the most part I feel that our Freedom that so many of the terrs condemn, opens their eyes and let's them realize while the US does have it's problems, it is not really "The Great Satan" they have been led to believe.
Again my apologies to you.
HUGGZZZZZZ

Sam wrote:Stabilizing Iraq and turning it into a free society will do more to stabilize the whole Middle East and World situation than anything else that has been in the recent or near or perhaps even far past.

No apologies necessary, Sam. But this comment truly surprises me. Curious... do you think, wholeheartedly, that this is the sole primary reason President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq?

Mind you, I support the war to a degree... wishing it would have been executed better... but I don't believe for a minute that the only reason the US (& GB) is there is strictly to oust Saddam & the Batthists. (sp?)

iuparrothead wrote:

Sam wrote:Stabilizing Iraq and turning it into a free society will do more to stabilize the whole Middle East and World situation than anything else that has been in the recent or near or perhaps even far past.

No apologies necessary, Sam. But this comment truly surprises me. Curious... do you think, wholeheartedly, that this is the sole primary reason President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq?

Mind you, I support the war to a degree... wishing it would have been executed better... but I don't believe for a minute that the only reason the US (& GB) is there is strictly to oust Saddam & the Batthists. (sp?)

Well to be honest I think it is only part of it, It may be the ultimate accomplishment, of the war. If you will allow me to use this comparison, that slavery was only part of the cause of War Between the States, yet it became known as the ultimate and best known goal of that war. Does that make sense??? Most people/ a lot of people have forgotten or were never taught or learned about other issues of the war.

I feel it is part of the ultimate goal. Remember we are fighting for endgame here...and for the future. We needed favorable terrain, access for troops and resupply, we needed a central location to fight an enemy that is not really an organized army or militia.
Can you find a better place/country to fight them??? Consider the terrain. Consider world opinion ( okies, forget world opinion) Consider containment and abilirty to control the enemies travel to a degree, ( DEFINITELY a lot easier over there han within the continental U.S.)

What are ultimate goals of the endgame??? To win, to survive, to be the victor. To defeat your opponent. Just like chess there are many parts to this. I really don't know if any single thing,cause, whatever, other than terrain can be said to be the ultimate reason for it in Iraq. Saddam gave us cause. Irregardless of what the MSM reports about Saddam and MWDs. Saddam had most of the world convinced he had them....and they believed him.

Yes ( not that you directly asked) I do believe that having a stable Iraq, and stablelizing the Middle East, is part of the ultimate goal and endgame, in this end, it would eventually lead to pretty much an end to terrorism,as we currently know it.

Sam wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:

Sam wrote:Stabilizing Iraq and turning it into a free society will do more to stabilize the whole Middle East and World situation than anything else that has been in the recent or near or perhaps even far past.

No apologies necessary, Sam. But this comment truly surprises me. Curious... do you think, wholeheartedly, that this is the sole primary reason President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq?

Mind you, I support the war to a degree... wishing it would have been executed better... but I don't believe for a minute that the only reason the US (& GB) is there is strictly to oust Saddam & the Batthists. (sp?)

Well to be honest I think it is only part of it, It may be the ultimate accomplishment, of the war. If you will allow me to use this comparison, that slavery was only part of the cause of War Between the States, yet it became known as the ultimate and best known goal of that war. Does that make sense??? Most people/ a lot of people have forgotten or were never taught or learned about other issues of the war.

I feel it is part of the ultimate goal. Remember we are fighting for endgame here...and for the future. We needed favorable terrain, access for troops and resupply, we needed a central location to fight an enemy that is not really an organized army or militia.
Can you find a better place/country to fight them??? Consider the terrain. Consider world opinion ( okies, forget world opinion) Consider containment and abilirty to control the enemies travel to a degree, ( DEFINITELY a lot easier over there han within the continental U.S.)

What are ultimate goals of the endgame??? To win, to survive, to be the victor. To defeat your opponent. Just like chess there are many parts to this. I really don't know if any single thing,cause, whatever, other than terrain can be said to be the ultimate reason for it in Iraq. Saddam gave us cause. Irregardless of what the MSM reports about Saddam and MWDs. Saddam had most of the world convinced he had them....and they believed him.

Yes ( not that you directly asked) I do believe that having a stable Iraq, and stablelizing the Middle East, is part of the ultimate goal and endgame, in this end, it would eventually lead to pretty much an end to terrorism,as we currently know it.

Or... support and protection of Isreal, maybe???

iuparrothead wrote:

Sam wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:

Sam wrote:Stabilizing Iraq and turning it into a free society will do more to stabilize the whole Middle East and World situation than anything else that has been in the recent or near or perhaps even far past.

No apologies necessary, Sam. But this comment truly surprises me. Curious... do you think, wholeheartedly, that this is the sole primary reason President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq?

Mind you, I support the war to a degree... wishing it would have been executed better... but I don't believe for a minute that the only reason the US (& GB) is there is strictly to oust Saddam & the Batthists. (sp?)

Well to be honest I think it is only part of it, It may be the ultimate accomplishment, of the war. If you will allow me to use this comparison, that slavery was only part of the cause of War Between the States, yet it became known as the ultimate and best known goal of that war. Does that make sense??? Most people/ a lot of people have forgotten or were never taught or learned about other issues of the war.

I feel it is part of the ultimate goal. Remember we are fighting for endgame here...and for the future. We needed favorable terrain, access for troops and resupply, we needed a central location to fight an enemy that is not really an organized army or militia.
Can you find a better place/country to fight them??? Consider the terrain. Consider world opinion ( okies, forget world opinion) Consider containment and abilirty to control the enemies travel to a degree, ( DEFINITELY a lot easier over there han within the continental U.S.)

What are ultimate goals of the endgame??? To win, to survive, to be the victor. To defeat your opponent. Just like chess there are many parts to this. I really don't know if any single thing,cause, whatever, other than terrain can be said to be the ultimate reason for it in Iraq. Saddam gave us cause. Irregardless of what the MSM reports about Saddam and MWDs. Saddam had most of the world convinced he had them....and they believed him.

Yes ( not that you directly asked) I do believe that having a stable Iraq, and stablelizing the Middle East, is part of the ultimate goal and endgame, in this end, it would eventually lead to pretty much an end to terrorism,as we currently know it.

Or... support and protection of Isreal, maybe???

I am not sure what you mean, IF you meant that we should give up support and protection of Israel, then that is not a viable nor realistic option, and would set a precedent for everyone of allies. That would lead to anytime an enemy came forth and said they would cease and desist if we abandoned such and such country that was our allie.

The terrs, are kidnapping, killing, and beheading innocent men, women, children, that have nothing to do with politics or religion.
I do not understand why anyone would willingly aid them or give them comfort, or credence to their cause and be against those who fight them. ( I am not saying you do, I am just speaking in general)