Michelle Obama won't cover up in Saudi Arabia - Good for her.

If you wanted to make a statement- why didn't George Dubyah Bush keep his shoes on when he visited a Mosque? http://nypost.com/2007/06/28/bush-vi...slamic-rescue/

if our ugly women are seen uncovered, the arabs may conclude there's no need for women to be covered in the first place-very tricky of Michelle

Because it (taking shoes off) isn't a policy directed at a specific group - like women?

Do you not get the distinction. All people entering a mosque should remove shoes out of respect. Only Saudi women need to be subservient when in public.

If you wanted to make a statement- why didn't George Dubyah Bush keep his shoes on when he visited a Mosque? http://nypost.com/2007/06/28/bush-vi...slamic-rescue/ Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Because it (taking shoes off) isn't a policy directed at a specific group - like women?

Do you not get the distinction. All people entering a mosque should remove shoes out of respect. Only Saudi women need to be subservient when in public. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Well, I would add my wife to the women who need to be subservient in public but she doesn't seem to agree...

I'm sure she is grateful for your support.

Your statements regarding France are more puzzling. Odd how the right has suddenly embraced our friends that were previously known as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys".....and who advocated "freedom fries" rather than "French fries"...hypocrites.

Odd to see you posting up such vacuous shit. Originally Posted by timpage

You're confused. So let me clarify.

I've NEVER been in the camp that thought the French were "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and have always thought such terms were ignorant slanders.

I know a bit about military history and know that the French have always fought well above their weight for centuries.

That suffered brutally in WWI and fought the Germans to a standstill.

In WWII, their soldiers fought bravely, but they were undermined and betrayed by the tactics and planning of the politicians and top brass. In fact, they fought their hardest even after the the issue was pretty much decided. The Maginot Line and the small, under-equipped armed forces were not the fault of the ordinary soldier.

And were it not for the English Channel and the Royal Navy, Great Britain would have been overrun by the Nazis as well.

Returning to Obama, he should have been in Paris or at least Biden. It's galling to see him paying respects to the Saudi monarchs who have done so much to foment trouble around the world.

So, he got it backward. Kerry or some other ambassador would have been good enough to go to Saudi Arabia and Obama or Biden should have been in France.

Strange to see you posting on behalf of obeisance to the Arab dynasty.

You're confused. So let me clarify.

I've NEVER been in the camp that thought the French were "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and have always thought such terms were ignorant slanders.

I know a bit about military history and know that the French have always fought well above their weight for centuries.

That suffered brutally in WWI and fought the Germans to a standstill.

In WWII, their soldiers fought bravely, but they were undermined and betrayed by the tactics and planning of the politicians and top brass. In fact, they fought their hardest even after the the issue was pretty much decided. The Maginot Line and the small, under-equipped armed forces were not the fault of the ordinary soldier.

And were it not for the English Channel and the Royal Navy, Great Britain would have been overrun by the Nazis as well.

Returning to Obama, he should have been in Paris or at least Biden.
why, these are everyday crime that happen(use to happen) in the US, just giving lots of media attention It's galling to see him paying respects to the Saudi monarchs who have done so much to foment trouble around the world.

So, he got it backward. Kerry or some other ambassador would have been good enough to go to Saudi Arabia and Obama or Biden should have been in France.

Strange to see you posting on behalf of obeisance to the Arab dynasty. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Because it (taking shoes off) isn't a policy directed at a specific group - like women?

Do you not get the distinction. All people entering a mosque should remove shoes out of respect. Only Saudi women need to be subservient when in public. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Whirlaway I don't know how often you read your bible, but women covering their head is actually not only a Muslim" requirement but if you read your Bible women were required to do the same in both the old and New Testament. however Jews and Christians do not enfoce it to the degree of Islam. Also if you want to talk about women inequality in Islam - can you name me a high ranking woman holding a position at a Jewish synagogue ? Has there been a woman Pope? Pakistan is an Islamic country and has elected a women President twice - how many women have been elected in the so called Christian United States ? Although we will get our first in 2016.

Why are you hyperventilating on this WE? You overstated your position and now you have to pull back (ask Seth Rogen and Micky Moore how this is done). My guess is that you totally misunderstood where we are on the right come from in our comments. You didn't get what you wanted. We asked your snark with cogent responses and now you have pretty much nothing. Try to carry on.

if our ugly women are seen uncovered, the arabs may conclude there's no need for women to be covered in the first place-very tricky of Michelle Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I was just wishing that she would cover up here at home.
A burlap bag would do fine.

American diplomats have immunity from laws in foreign countries- it goes both ways- please do research before you post sir. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I was right!!
I wasnt 100%, sure and I dont say shit I'm not right about and I dont do research shit that is retards know


we dont have to follow their laws why is whatever obama does over there an issue?
we dont follow their laws, who cares?

Is Moochelle really a TS? Enquirer minds want to know.
Dudes don't have to cover their heads in raghead land.
I mean little sheethead land.
lol.....you guys crack me up.
I cant wait to watch you turn yourselves inside out.
Damn, did I say that out loud.
Never mind. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Heh....

You're confused. So let me clarify.

I've NEVER been in the camp that thought the French were "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and have always thought such terms were ignorant slanders.

I know a bit about military history and know that the French have always fought well above their weight for centuries.

That suffered brutally in WWI and fought the Germans to a standstill.

In WWII, their soldiers fought bravely, but they were undermined and betrayed by the tactics and planning of the politicians and top brass. In fact, they fought their hardest even after the the issue was pretty much decided. The Maginot Line and the small, under-equipped armed forces were not the fault of the ordinary soldier.

And were it not for the English Channel and the Royal Navy, Great Britain would have been overrun by the Nazis as well.

Returning to Obama, he should have been in Paris or at least Biden. It's galling to see him paying respects to the Saudi monarchs who have done so much to foment trouble around the world.

So, he got it backward. Kerry or some other ambassador would have been good enough to go to Saudi Arabia and Obama or Biden should have been in France.

Strange to see you posting on behalf of obeisance to the Arab dynasty. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Points taken. Agree on the French military history lesson. It's the people you generally agree and vote with who might take issue. Obeisance?

The Royal Air Force might have something to say about you crediting the channel and the navy only.....Never was so much owed to so many by so few and all that.....

Don't disagree on the Paris thing either. But, quite frankly, I think we've become so numb to mass shootings and acts of terrorism and more than a decade of foreign wars that he underestimated what the European response would be and accordingly, failed to react appropriately .... at least in the sense of the news cycle. He should have been present even if the logistics posed a problem....it would have looked better and deprived folks like you and JDIdiot and Whirlaway the opportunity to criticize every breath he takes.

I realize it's not a good analogy but we had more six year olds shot to death at Sandy Hook than what happened in Paris. I missed the world leaders walking arm in arm here in the US in protest or remembrance or anything at all on that one which is especially ironic in light of the innocence of those kids and the fact that the editors who were murdered knew what they were risking, and god bless 'em for it. At least they got to choose the risk.

As for the Saudi's....well.....our most resourceful and government-friendly Arab allies in the Middle East for decades. With King Abdullah being one of the folks most receptive to US input on US interests. You remember about the Middle East, right? The place where all that oil comes from? You know....where we go fight wars because democracy needs to be spread around whether the locals want it or not...and because, oh yeah....they have all that oil we want.

The Saudis are despots and they violate the rights of their citizens on a regular basis. No doubt. But, if you accept the proposition that we need friendly Arab governments in the area....it's a damn good idea to attend King Abdullah's funeral/memorial.

The Royal Air Force might have something to say about you crediting the channel and the navy only.....Never was so much owed to so many by so few and all that.... Originally Posted by timpage

Not downplaying the importance of the RAF, but their airbases would have been rolled over along with the British Army's installations by Panzer divisions. Dunkirk barely saved the army.

The RAF was key to stopping the Luftwaffe in The Blitz. The Wehrmacht? Not so much,

Don't disagree on the Paris thing either. But, quite frankly, I think we've become so numb to mass shootings and acts of terrorism and more than a decade of foreign wars that he underestimated what the European response would be and accordingly, failed to react appropriately .... at least in the sense of the news cycle. He should have been present even if the logistics posed a problem....it would have looked better and deprived folks like you and JDIdiot and Whirlaway the opportunity to criticize every breath he takes. Originally Posted by timpage

Again, you need to pay more attention to my posts. I don't know how you lump me in with JDBarleycorn and Whirlagay because, while I disagree with Obama on a lot of things, I've never come close to criticizing every breath he takes. I don't have Obama Derangement Syndrome.

It is particularly ironic that you think I criticize his every breath in light of the fact that I voted for him over Romney - something that gives IFFY such conniption fits that he often forgets which one of his cousins he is married to.

I realize it's not a good analogy but we had more six year olds shot to death at Sandy Hook than what happened in Paris. I missed the world leaders walking arm in arm here in the US in protest or remembrance or anything at all on that one which is especially ironic in light of the innocence of those kids and the fact that the editors who were murdered knew what they were risking, and god bless 'em for it. At least they got to choose the risk. Originally Posted by timpage

It is a bad analogy and the primary reason is that we distinguish between atrocities that are committed by insane people and atrocities committed by cold, calculating terrorists in furtherance of some objective.

The killing of the Charlie Hebdo editors NEEDED a united response to make it clear that the rest of the world will NOT give in to ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any other Islamic fundamentalists. Otherwise, they are emboldened.

But, the Sandy Hook killings didn't require a united response from world leaders because, really, TO WHOM would it be directed? Paranoid schizophrenics listening to voices in their heads?

So, no, it wasn't necessary for foreign heads of government to show up at the Sandy Hook funerals any more than it was necessary for Obama to show up in Norway at the funerals of the 77 victims of Anders Breivik, most of whom were adolescents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

The Charlie Hebdo killings were different in kind, not just numbers.

As for the Saudi's....well.....our most resourceful and government-friendly Arab allies in the Middle East for decades. With King Abdullah being one of the folks most receptive to US input on US interests. You remember about the Middle East, right? The place where all that oil comes from? You know....where we go fight wars because democracy needs to be spread around whether the locals want it or not...and because, oh yeah....they have all that oil we want.

The Saudis are despots and they violate the rights of their citizens on a regular basis. No doubt. But, if you accept the proposition that we need friendly Arab governments in the area....it's a damn good idea to attend King Abdullah's funeral/memorial. Originally Posted by timpage

We aren't dependent on Saudi oil - or much Arab oil at all. The Arab oil embargo in the early 1970s taught us that lesson.

Starting years ago, we began getting the lion share of our imported oil from Africa, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada - any place wear people don't wear table cloths on their heads. That way, if they tried another oil embargo because of Israel, they would hurt China and other Asian countries and some European countries. The Arabs still influenced the price on the world market and we had to pay it, but we got our supplies from elsewhere.

Our primary interest in keeping oil flowing in the Straits of Hormuz was to keep the world economy stable - keep oil supply up to keep market prices down. We still have to buy and sell with the nations that depend on Arab oil.

Nonetheless, the Saudis did very thing they could to drive the price up to $100 per barrel by restricting OPEC output.

We can thumb our nose at them more easily than people think. What are they going to do without our navy to protect them and our weapons to arm them?

Their options are limited, too, and we should treat them accordingly.

Not downplaying the importance of the RAF, but their airbases would have been rolled over along with the British Army's installations by Panzer divisions. Dunkirk barely saved the army.

The RAF was key to stopping the Luftwaffe in The Blitz. The Wehrmacht? Not so much,


Again, you need to pay more attention to my posts. I don't know how you lump me in with JDBarleycorn and Whirlagay because, while I disagree with Obama on a lot of things, I've never come close to criticizing every breath he takes. I don't have Obama Derangement Syndrome.

It is particularly ironic that you think I criticize his every breath in light of the fact that I voted for him over Romney - something that gives IFFY such conniption fits that he often forgets which one of his cousins he is married to.



It is a bad analogy and the primary reason is that we distinguish between atrocities that are committed by insane people and atrocities committed by cold, calculating terrorists in furtherance of some objective.

The killing of the Charlie Hebdo editors NEEDED a united response to make it clear that the rest of the world will NOT give in to ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any other Islamic fundamentalists. Otherwise, they are emboldened.

But, the Sandy Hook killings didn't require a united response from world leaders because, really, TO WHOM would it be directed? Paranoid schizophrenics listening to voices in their heads?

So, no, it wasn't necessary for foreign heads of government to show up at the Sandy Hook funerals any more than it was necessary for Obama to show up in Norway at the funerals of the 77 victims of Anders Breivik, most of whom were adolescents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

The Charlie Hebdo killings were different in kind, not just numbers.


We aren't dependent on Saudi oil - or much Arab oil at all. The Arab oil embargo in the early 1970s taught us that lesson.

Starting years ago, we began getting the lion share of our imported oil from Africa, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada - any place wear people don't wear table cloths on their heads. That way, if they tried another oil embargo because of Israel, they would hurt China and other Asian countries and some European countries. The Arabs still influenced the price on the world market and we had to pay it, but we got our supplies from elsewhere.

Our primary interest in keeping oil flowing in the Straits of Hormuz was to keep the world economy stable - keep oil supply up to keep market prices down. We still have to buy and sell with the nations that depend on Arab oil.

Nonetheless, the Saudis did very thing they could to drive the price up to $100 per barrel by restricting OPEC output.

We can thumb our nose at them more easily than people think. What are they going to do without our navy to protect them and our weapons to arm them?

Their options are limited, too, and we should treat them accordingly. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I'm highly impressed by your response, and by the fact that you are the only person that timpage disagrees with in a civil manner. He is rude to everyone else who disagrees with him.

Points taken. Agree on the French military history lesson. It's the people you generally agree and vote with who might take issue. Obeisance?

The Royal Air Force might have something to say about you crediting the channel and the navy only.....Never was so much owed to so many by so few and all that.....

Don't disagree on the Paris thing either. But, quite frankly, I think we've become so numb to mass shootings and acts of terrorism and more than a decade of foreign wars that he underestimated what the European response would be and accordingly, failed to react appropriately .... at least in the sense of the news cycle. He should have been present even if the logistics posed a problem....it would have looked better and deprived folks like you and JDIdiot and Whirlaway the opportunity to criticize every breath he takes.

I realize it's not a good analogy but we had more six year olds shot to death at Sandy Hook than what happened in Paris. I missed the world leaders walking arm in arm here in the US in protest or remembrance or anything at all on that one which is especially ironic in light of the innocence of those kids and the fact that the editors who were murdered knew what they were risking, and god bless 'em for it. At least they got to choose the risk.

As for the Saudi's....well.....our most resourceful and government-friendly Arab allies in the Middle East for decades. With King Abdullah being one of the folks most receptive to US input on US interests. You remember about the Middle East, right? The place where all that oil comes from? You know....where we go fight wars because democracy needs to be spread around whether the locals want it or not...and because, oh yeah....they have all that oil we want.

The Saudis are despots and they violate the rights of their citizens on a regular basis. No doubt. But, if you accept the proposition that we need friendly Arab governments in the area....it's a damn good idea to attend King Abdullah's funeral/memorial. Originally Posted by timpage

You forgot to mention that more young black people are shot and killed in Chicago every week than a month in Afghanistan.