A Few Questions For Liberals

Published on August 14, 2009 By Leauki In War on Terror

1. How much of the middle east and north-Africa has to be under Arab rule before Arab dictators rule over so much land and over so many peoples that their rule becomes "imperialism" which has to be opposed by "anti-imperialists"?

2. How many people does a dictator have to murder before he becomes a symbol for freedom and opposition to capitalist tyranny?

3. Apart from the "Palestinian cause", has there ever been another cause that was allied with German Nazis, called for the extermination of an entire nation, and attacks schools and kindergardens that was considered "legitimate resistance"?

4. How small would Israel have to be in comparison to the Arab League before it would no longer be considered "imperialist" and how many non-Arab peoples may Arab dictators rule over before liberals criticise them for "occupying other people's land"?

5. How come the world has four billion dollars for supporting Arab terrorists in Gaza but cannot afford decent refugee camps for escaped slaves from Sudan?

6. How did George W. Bush make all the bodies of the millions of victims of the Iraq war disappear when Saddam Hussein needed large mass graves for the bodies of a few hundred thousand dead Shiites?

7. Why does fighting and gasing Kurds constitute "peace" while invading Iraq constitutes "war"?

8. What is the "compromise" that liberals want Israel to support in a conflict with people who demand death for all Jews?

I'd really like to know the answers.

And feel free to ask me similar questions if you find my own opinions as weird as I find those of the "peace activists".

Comments (Page 3)

Nitro Cruiser

on Aug 25, 2009

And what disappoints me most is that Obama doesn't care. I didn't expect much from him, but I thought he would at least care about Africa.

He doesn't care about black on black violence, only white on black issues. The Gates affair demonstrated that. Besides, those poor blacks can't send his campaign money (through back doors of course).

Leauki

on Aug 26, 2009

He doesn't care about black on black violence, only white on black issues.

Sudan is a classical white on black issue.

It has a genocide and slavery and poverty and black Africans oppressed by a foreign power. It has absolutely everything the left claims it is interested in, except evil Zionists that can be declared responsible.

The Gates affair demonstrated that. Besides, those poor blacks can't send his campaign money (through back doors of course).

I think it is time not to differentiate between "black" and "white" but between "American" and "African". African-Americans are not poor and oppressed in the sense that African-Africans are.

Nitro Cruiser

on Aug 26, 2009

African-Americans are not poor and oppressed in the sense that African-Africans are.

You wouldn't think so when the issue comes up here in the US. Very unfortunate we can seem to get past this. I don't know what more could be done than elect a black man to POTUS and have black man at the head of the RNC. Some folks are never happy. Had McCain won they would have been hundreds of articles about how the US is a rascist country.

Another reason (IMO) that Obama doesn't want to support Africa is he doesn't want his white supporters to feel he is all for blacks, and leave them out. After all even if every eligible black voter voted for Obama he still would need his white supporters to get elected.

Leauki

on Aug 26, 2009

Another reason (IMO) that Obama doesn't want to support Africa is he doesn't want his white supporters to feel he is all for blacks, and leave them out.

I wonder, if we may employ such a meaningless differentiation, whether the percentage of whites who want the President to do something to help the Africans in Sudan is higher or lower than the percentage of blacks who want the same.

Nitro Cruiser

on Aug 27, 2009

Well from my perspective, I believe it is good practice to help Africa. Of course dumping money is always a bad idea, as most of this aid goes into the pockets of the dictators (or politicians). I like the idea of micro loans (a Clinton imitative).

One of the problems with Africa is the local resentment that the US or others want something in return (I'd settle for stability) or they are interfering. This is especially true of peacekeeper, the Somalia fiasco comes to mind. I think a lot of people say why bother they don't want or appreciate help.

Leauki

on Aug 28, 2009

Bill Clinton was the first president who made Africa a subject, George W. Bush then focused on it.

George Bush was/is very popular in Tanzania and other sub-Saharan countries (except in South-Africa for some reason). The Africans in Sudan are very much pro-American. The US could also use their influence with Morocco to force the king to compromise with the native (Tamazight) population. (I will never understand why Arab rule over native Africans is never a problem for anti-imperialists!)

Obama seems to have given up and relies simply on being half-black for popularity.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!