Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Lara Logan tells it like it is

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lara Logan tells it like it is

    I posted Lara Logan’s speech on the thread “People died, were killed, and Obama lied” in the Political Parties, Campaigns & Elections sub forum and while some have deemed the thread worthy of reply none have actually commented on Lara’s speech. I consider this odd given the passion with which she spoke and the fact that she is a part of the media and not some partisan pundit.



    So why are so few interested in such a damning statement against the administration’s lies and foreign policy failures? I believe she is right on so many levels, but her fellow media heads are silent, the administration has ignored her, and none have added their two cents on the forum. Do people have their heads in the sand or are they just hoping it will all go away.

    tashi deleks,

    M

  • #2
    Re: Lara Logan tells it like it is

    We know that the Lame Stream Media is biased to the left. We know that they are in the bag for Obama. Lara's speech was critical of Obama's foreign policy.

    Is there really any surprise that the Lame Stream Media is not covering it? It's not what they want to hear, and it's not in alignment with their ideology.

    As to the response on the board here, it's harder to say. Perhaps caught all up in other threads.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Lara Logan tells it like it is

      Originally posted by Mahasattva View Post
      I posted Lara Logan’s speech on the thread “People died, were killed, and Obama lied” in the Political Parties, Campaigns & Elections sub forum
      I can't understand what she is saying. Maybe I need a new sound system but since I tend not to use my computer except for reading I can't justify the $$$$s. Do you have a transcript?

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Lara Logan tells it like it is

        Originally posted by CalifornCracker View Post
        I can't understand what she is saying. Maybe I need a new sound system but since I tend not to use my computer except for reading I can't justify the $$$$s. Do you have a transcript?
        Headphones are pretty cheap. Just a friendly suggestion.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Lara Logan tells it like it is

          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
          Headphones are pretty cheap. Just a friendly suggestion.
          I have headphones, but apparently my audio device is not very good. Also, I don't tend to view videos even when their sound is good. I prefer text.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Lara Logan tells it like it is

            Originally posted by CalifornCracker View Post
            I can't understand what she is saying. Maybe I need a new sound system but since I tend not to use my computer except for reading I can't justify the $$$$s. Do you have a transcript?
            I haven't found a full transcript yet, but here are some interesting excerpts:
            Lara Logan's 2012 BGA Annual Luncheon Keynote Speech:
            “I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . . The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban. There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!” She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. We have been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.” Our enemies are writing the story, she suggests, and there’s no happy ending for us.
            Some excerpts:
            "Your deadliest enemies on the Afghan battlefield have completely freedom of movement inside Pakistan with the blessing of the Pakistanis. And every commander that's sat in your shoes has had to try and build a relationship and go through the same motions time and time again. And the effect on the battlefield remains exactly the same: American soldiers continue to die because of the support Pakistan gives to America's enemies.

            [...]

            To think there is any similarity between this and Viet Nam is ridiculous. The Viet Cong didn't care what you did when you went back to America. The Viet Cong weren't fighting for an Islamic caliphate. The Viet Cong didn't have a global struggle. And it's amazing to me that we constantly ignore what Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and [...] all these groups tell us every day in their own newspapers, in their own statements.

            [...]
            Our way of life is under attack, and if you think that's government propaganda, if you think that's nonsense, if you think that's warmongering, [then] you're not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.

            [...]
            If you fail to identify the ideological component to this fight, if you fail to identify what your enemy is really fighting for, if you lie about who they really are, I don't see how you could possible have the right strategy.

            [...]
            When I look at what's happening in Libya, there's a big song and dance about whether this was a terrorist attack or a protest. And you just want to scream, "For God's sake! Are you kidding me?" The last time we were attacked like this was the USS Cole, which was a prelude to the 1998 embassy bombings, which was a prelude to 9/11. And you're sending in FBI to investigate. I hope to God that you're sending in your best clandestine warriors who are going to exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil, that its ambassadors will not be murdered, and the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it."
            -------------

            Food for thought.

            tashi deleks,

            M

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Lara Logan tells it like it is

              We will never conquer all of our enemies.
              The issue is to what extent we must go in order to handle a situation at hand.
              It's pretty obvious that 10 years of the US military involved in the elimination of the Taliban, not to mention Hezbollah and Fatah, etc... has gotten us nowhere.
              And no President has the balls to tell the Islamic world that the next terrorist attack is answered by nuking Mecca or Medina.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Lara Logan tells it like it is

                How would nuking Mecca or Medina help?

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Lara Logan tells it like it is

                  Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
                  We will never conquer all of our enemies.
                  The issue is to what extent we must go in order to handle a situation at hand.
                  It's pretty obvious that 10 years of the US military involved in the elimination of the Taliban, not to mention Hezbollah and Fatah, etc... has gotten us nowhere.
                  And no President has the balls to tell the Islamic world that the next terrorist attack is answered by nuking Mecca or Medina.
                  Other than killing a good number of people, which will include the WWII mentality of killing plenty of women and children, for everyone that is left alive away from Mecca and Medina I do not think it will motivate them the direction you think it will. It seems to me the more you try to make 1/4th to 1/3rd (depending upon source of course) of the planet fear the US the more we really end up breading real hatred and eventual acts of extremism. And we have not eliminated the Taliban, or Hezbollah, or whoever else. Weakened perhaps, but not out. At this stage I am unsure what the solution is as everyone has made such a mess of things but sending in nukes... pretty sure we can rule that out as a wise choice in any sense of the word.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Lara Logan tells it like it is

                    Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
                    We will never conquer all of our enemies.
                    All of our enemies we go to war with we must conquer, considering the alternative. We knew this in WW II. Technically the Korean War hasnt ended, it was a cessation of hostilities, which we accepted because of China. Vietnam was a political defeat, not a military one and it still took nearly two decades to recover from it. But as Lara points out in her speech, To think there is any similarity between this and Viet Nam is ridiculous. The Viet Cong didn't care what you did when you went back to America. The Viet Cong weren't fighting for an Islamic caliphate. The Viet Cong didn't have a global struggle. And it's amazing to me that we constantly ignore what Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and [...] all these groups tell us every day in their own newspapers, in their own statements.

                    We will either utterly defeat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban or they will continue to strike at us until Israel is wiped off the map and we are defeated.

                    The issue is to what extent we must go in order to handle a situation at hand.
                    Some bullies you can knock down and let them know you will knock them down again and again and they will stop acting as a bully. Once they have stopped acting as a bully you can show them kindness and compassion and turn them into a friend and ally. Other bullies you must utterly destroy. Turning the cheek, or reaching out in friendship is only perceived as a weakness to exploit. Knock them down and they will attack the moment you turn your back and it does not matter how many times you knock them down. Some did their best to demonize Bush when he invaded Iraq, but before the left (most of who supported him) turned on him for political reason and it hadnt become a quagmire, the Iranians aided us in Afghanistan, Libyas Muammar Gaddafi contacted us and gave up his wmds, and Pakistan actually helped us rather than hinder us. Appear strong and lead with confidence, be good to our friends and accept no excuse for abuse from our enemies -- our enemies will be far far less likely to attack us directly or through third parties. Bin Laden attacked us because we were perceived a paper tiger unwilling to fight. Bush changed that perception briefly by not only invading Afghanistan but also by invading Iraq.

                    It's pretty obvious that 10 years of the US military involved in the elimination of the Taliban, not to mention Hezbollah and Fatah, etc... has gotten us nowhere.
                    Hezbollah and Fatah are Israel's problem and we should support Israel in defeating them. Israel should utterly defeat them and we should support them in doing so, then Israel can make peace with the Palestinian people (as we did with the Germans and the Japanese in WW II). We should end all aid to the Palestinians until they choose to end their acceptance of Hezbollah and Fatah and Hamas.

                    Obama was handed a bad economic situation, which he made worse, but the military situation he was handed as on the road to real success. His foreign policy on all fronts has been weak and feckless and a failure. The only things he has done right is kill some pirates and Bin Laden (actually SEALs did the killing) and continue some of the Bush policies that he had promised to end (and never crediting the effectiveness of those policies). He even has the temerity to claim Iraq as his own win. I could go on and on. Iraq and Afghanistan are a mess, like the economy, because Obama made them so.

                    And no President has the balls to tell the Islamic world that the next terrorist attack is answered by nuking Mecca or Medina.
                    Which would be very very stupid. 1) No one in the Islamic world would believe that any US president would have the balls to actually carry out a nuclear strike against Mecca or Medina in retaliation to a terrorist attack. Making the threat would insure another terrorist attack. B) Nuking Mecca or Medina would have the exact opposite effect. It would make enemies of all Muslims, moderate and extremist alike. And once Mecca and Medina are smoking holes and sands of glass what can you threaten after the next attack? Unlike the Soviets, Muslims believe in an afterlife, and a paradise with 72 virgins if you martyr yourself in defense of the faith.

                    While it would need to be enacted with care and with the right timing I support the Ryan Doctrine. No, not Paul Ryan, Jack Ryan.

                    From the wiki page -- [The] Ryan Doctrine
                    At the end of Executive Orders [written by Tom Clancy], Ryan, in the tradition of Presidents Monroe, Truman, Carter and Reagan, issues a foreign policy doctrine which largely defines his administration's international perspective. The Ryan Doctrine states that the United States will no longer tolerate attacks on "our territory, our possessions, or our citizens," and adds that whoever orders such an attack will be held accountable by the United States.
                    This statement comes soon after the Ebola attack on the United States ordered by Mahmoud Haji Daryaei, the dictator of the new United Islamic Republic. Ryan announces the new doctrine on the same day that Daryaei is killed by two F-117s, on Ryan's orders. Therefore, the Ryan Doctrine supersedes the executive order put in place by President Ford, which forbids the assassination of foreign heads of state. Ryan, however, believes it is a more ethical alternative than all-out war, since it punishes the person responsible for the attack instead of the people he rules."

                    Obama could have claimed that he has followed the Ryan Doctrine by ordering the killing of Bin Laden, but he has shown that he would rather America be a paper tiger with his exit date for Afghanistan, his inability to establish a real post-war relationship with the Iraqis, his weak lead from behind crap which helped set the stage for the Libyan 9/11 attacks, his apology tour in the Middle East (Cairo speech), his threats of sanctions against Iran that were never realized, his reneging on the missile shield for Poland, his nuclear weapons deal with the Russians, his gutting of the military, and his utter mistreatment and insults of Israel.

                    Obama, bad for the economy, bad for national security, bad for America.

                    tashi deleks,

                    M
                    Last edited by Mahasattva; 10-17-2012, 08:05 PM.

                    ?

                    Working...
                    X