If you vote on principles and conviction, you can't vote for Obama

I understand the difference, apparently you don't understand the difference between the Bush Doctrine and your previously stated principled position of leaving them the fuck alone and getting the fuck out of their sandbox. And you're right, the thread has devolved into another silly attempt by you, to get the last word in. We're still "occupying" two middle-eastern countries, while 'selectively taking out the enemy' in three more, which Bush also did in Iraq and Afghanistan before we went in to restore order and help them train security, which you now claim is essential that we continue to do in Afghanistan. (But shouldn't have been done in Iraq!)


You mentioned Yemen, so far it's the only one of the three countries any of you dumbbells have come up with, but you've not explained why we are bombing them, and what we are trying to accomplish. You've not explained how this helps our relations with Muslims. Previously, you were opposed to US intervention, we needed to leave them alone and let them live how they please and mind our own damn business, but now, it's apparently okay as long as we don't put troops in to help them restore order and rebuild. (oh but wait... that's what MUST be done in Afghanistan, that's why he hasn't ended that war and brought the troops home!) Apparently, you think they don't mind and can understand Obama is trying to get out of their business by dropping drone missiles on their heads instead of helping them establish democratic government. Instead of pissing off Muslims in two countries, we've made it five under Obama.... He believes in Spreading the Drones! Eh?

Just like every issue regarding Obama and his rhetoric, you have proven that you have no real principles and convictions. Even the things you seemingly hold dear to heart, you can abandon with Obama because he says the things you want to hear. It doesn't matter if he follows the exact same policies of the last administration, doesn't matter who he bombs and kills, or if he even brings home the troops, he means well and intends well, and that's all that really matters to you pinheads.

I hear the school bell ringing. Take a seat. :) OK. Today, we'll talk about the Bush Doctrine.

(Excerpt) The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of former United States president George W. Bush. The phrase was first used by Charles Krauthammer in June 2001 to describe the Bush Administration's "unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol". After 9/11 the phrase described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.


Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. military interests. Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002. (End) (Dic.com)

1. unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty

2. depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat

3. a policy of spreading democracy around the world

Assignment: Give examples of the Obama Administration initiating anything that could be considered as following those three policies. Use either your keyboard or a #2 HB pencil printing legibly so you will be clearly understood.

HINT: Keep your eye on the word "initiating".
 
1. Drone missiles are not acceptable and in accordance with any anti-ballistic missile treaty.

2. What other purpose do drone missiles have besides targeting foreign regimes who represent a potential or perceived threat?

3. What is the purpose of targeting foreign regimes with drone missiles, if not to promote democracy?

And for extra points...

"After 9/11 the phrase described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan."

And also used by the Obama administration to justify drone missile attacks on three other countries, which you can't name.
 
1. Drone missiles are not acceptable and in accordance with any anti-ballistic missile treaty.

Who unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty?

2. What other purpose do drone missiles have besides targeting foreign regimes who represent a potential or perceived threat?

They don't target regimes. They target a specific group of people. For example, the drone attacks in Pakistan.

3. What is the purpose of targeting foreign regimes with drone missiles, if not to promote democracy?

And for extra points...

Extra points? :lol: Dix, you are so confused it's a wonder I can even comprehend the nonsense you are writing. The drone attacks are no more an attack against a regime anymore than a house raid by the Police is an attack against a regime. The attacks are against terrorists. If drone attacks were an attack against a regime they would not attack a remote region in Pakistan. They would attack the Pakistani military and the President's residence. How is it you are unable to understand something so basic?

"After 9/11 the phrase described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan."

And also used by the Obama administration to justify drone missile attacks on three other countries, which you can't name.

Are you still going on about those 3 countries? I mentioned one and used it as an example. If you want to discuss the others then be specific. Perhaps it may be in your best interest to learn about what you're talking about because as it stands you don't have a clue. You're talking nonsense.
 
LMAO... A "group of people" is NOT a "regime!" That's cute!

Obama is following the BUSH DOCTRINE! He has now actually applied the Bush Doctrine MORE than President Bush himself.

And congrats are in order, after almost a week, you've managed to name 2 of 3 countries we're currently bombing other than Iraq and Afghanistan. Very good, pinhead, now can you name the third? Better yet, can you articulate why our drone attacks on these three countries is making our relations with Muslims in that part of the world, better? Remember, the whole argument against Bush, was that he was "creating more terrorists."
 
LMAO... A "group of people" is NOT a "regime!" That's cute!

Obama is following the BUSH DOCTRINE! He has now actually applied the Bush Doctrine MORE than President Bush himself.

And congrats are in order, after almost a week, you've managed to name 2 of 3 countries we're currently bombing other than Iraq and Afghanistan. Very good, pinhead, now can you name the third? Better yet, can you articulate why our drone attacks on these three countries is making our relations with Muslims in that part of the world, better? Remember, the whole argument against Bush, was that he was "creating more terrorists."

Are you implying an all-out invasion of Pakistan would improve Muslim relations?
 
Ahh. Good old Liberal thinking. They will like us better if we drop drones on their heads instead of invade!

You still don't understand, do you? It is one thing to fight an enemy and quite another to try and change the culture of an entire people.
 
You still don't understand, do you? It is one thing to fight an enemy and quite another to try and change the culture of an entire people.

Who's culture have we tried to change, Apple? I am not aware of this. I know we liberated the Iraqi people from a dictator they nicknamed "The Butcher of Baghdad" and helped them to establish the first democracy in the history of the Arab world. Other than that, we've fought alQuaeda terrorists and radical Islamic extremism. Is that what you're talking about? Because THAT culture has to change before we encounter another 9/11. And that is supposedly who we are drone attacking at present. I don't know who's culture you thought we were changing, or if you even know what the hell you're talking about.

Here's what I do understand. 2/3rds of the deaths in Afghanistan have happened under Barack Obama. We still have no exit strategy there, and no one seems to even know what the mission objectives are at this point. Bodies continue to come home in flag-draped coffins, and the "anti-war left" is nowhere to be found. You're not questioning this president about his objectives, or when the troops are coming home, or any damn thing else. Not only THAT, but he has started launching drone attacks in THREE other countries! Raining indiscriminate bombs down on civilian populations left and right, and you are all perfectly okay with that! What happened to not pissing them off and getting the hell out of their business? You claim... oh well, it's hard to do... but it's really NOT that hard. The president makes a phone call to the Commanders and everyone packs up and comes home! That's what you lefty anti-war Obama fans promised was going to happen! Now... it's too hard?

Yeah, I suppose it is easier for Obama to invoke the Bush Doctrine and bomb the shit out of some Muslims! The thing that's surprising, is how well you've all adapted to it, and don't seem to mind at all, now that a Democrat is president.
 
Who's culture have we tried to change, Apple? I am not aware of this. I know we liberated the Iraqi people from a dictator they nicknamed "The Butcher of Baghdad" and helped them to establish the first democracy in the history of the Arab world. Other than that, we've fought alQuaeda terrorists and radical Islamic extremism. Is that what you're talking about? Because THAT culture has to change before we encounter another 9/11. And that is supposedly who we are drone attacking at present. I don't know who's culture you thought we were changing, or if you even know what the hell you're talking about.

I've been over this a dozen times. Can't you grasp the fact certain countries/people have a different political system? A different way of life? Their beliefs/religion is their political system. Trying to change/separate that would be like a foreign power changing the US Constitution to mandate religion and government must be combined. Anyone running for President must be a Catholic or a Mormon or a Protestant Fundamentalist. How well would that go over?

Then there's the inteference with young girls not covering their head/hair and going to school. Imagine a foreign power telling you your teenage daughter can go topless at the beach and you can't stop her? Democracy. Equal rights. Women are free to go topless in southern France. Why can't women go topless here? Stores are opening displaying western clothing such as short skirts for teen girls. Why not a Victoria's Secret opening across the street from a high school in your neighborhood?

Here's what I do understand. 2/3rds of the deaths in Afghanistan have happened under Barack Obama. We still have no exit strategy there, and no one seems to even know what the mission objectives are at this point. Bodies continue to come home in flag-draped coffins, and the "anti-war left" is nowhere to be found. You're not questioning this president about his objectives, or when the troops are coming home, or any damn thing else. Not only THAT, but he has started launching drone attacks in THREE other countries! Raining indiscriminate bombs down on civilian populations left and right, and you are all perfectly okay with that! What happened to not pissing them off and getting the hell out of their business? You claim... oh well, it's hard to do... but it's really NOT that hard. The president makes a phone call to the Commanders and everyone packs up and comes home! That's what you lefty anti-war Obama fans promised was going to happen! Now... it's too hard?

Yeah, I suppose it is easier for Obama to invoke the Bush Doctrine and bomb the shit out of some Muslims! The thing that's surprising, is how well you've all adapted to it, and don't seem to mind at all, now that a Democrat is president.

Have you ever seen interviews with Cheney and/or McCain? Both have criticized Obama for withdrawing troops so to say Obama is following the Bush Doctrine is nonsense. The Repubs were rebuilding/organizing Afghanistan and Iraq while trying to change the political system. Obama is trying to rebuild/organize those countries without the same push to change their culture. That is the difference and that's where the drones come in.

Do you think the guy growng poppies in Afghanistan gave a damn when the US blew up the Afghan government/military? He'd probably thank you assuming you left him alone but invasion results in changing the culture. Now he's told what he can and can't grow on his land. Now he's told he has to send his daughter to school and she can wear what she wants. We went from fighting terrorism to fighting the average citizen and that's where the problem lies and that's where droning comes in. Knock out the enemy such as the terrorists who jump the Iraq/Pakistan border but leave the general population alone. Simply stated, get the terrorists and stop trying to spread democracy.
 
I've been over this a dozen times. Can't you grasp the fact certain countries/people have a different political system? A different way of life? Their beliefs/religion is their political system. Trying to change/separate that would be like a foreign power changing the US Constitution to mandate religion and government must be combined. Anyone running for President must be a Catholic or a Mormon or a Protestant Fundamentalist. How well would that go over?

When the Iraqis drafted a Constitution which recognized Islamic religious laws, who screamed and complained? Not the right. No one has tried to change their culture. We helped freed Iraqi's establish a functioning democratic-style government. The first such government of its kind in the middle east. So far, it seems to be working rather well. Yes, they've had some bumps in the road, yes there is still some violence, but the Iraqi people, by and large, are very grateful for being liberated from Saddam Hussein's brutal tyrannical regime.

Then there's the inteference with young girls not covering their head/hair and going to school. Imagine a foreign power telling you your teenage daughter can go topless at the beach and you can't stop her? Democracy. Equal rights. Women are free to go topless in southern France. Why can't women go topless here? Stores are opening displaying western clothing such as short skirts for teen girls. Why not a Victoria's Secret opening across the street from a high school in your neighborhood?

We stand up for rights and freedom in this country, and abhor misogynism. To hear you try and justify the abuse and mutilation of women in radical Muslim countries, is almost as grotesque as hearing you talk about unborn human life. You are pathetic pond scum, not worthy of the label "human" in my opinion.

Again... We have not entered ANY country in the Middle East and told them how they must live and behave. We advocate FREEDOM, and that includes WOMEN, bonehead!

Have you ever seen interviews with Cheney and/or McCain? Both have criticized Obama for withdrawing troops so to say Obama is following the Bush Doctrine is nonsense. The Repubs were rebuilding/organizing Afghanistan and Iraq while trying to change the political system. Obama is trying to rebuild/organize those countries without the same push to change their culture. That is the difference and that's where the drones come in.

No, I haven't seen ANY interview of Cheney or McCain where they criticized Obama for withdrawing troops. BEFORE Obama was president, they questioned his RHETORIC about pulling completely out of the wars, because they knew that couldn't be done without severe consequences. Turns out, Obama didn't follow through with his RHETORIC. He followed Bush's timeline for withdrawal in Iraq, and we're still in Afghanistan, no one has been withdrawn.

The Bush Doctrine calls for aggressive American intervention to combat the threat of terrorism wherever it exists... that's what the drones are doing, by your very own admission. SO YES... OBAMA IS FOLLOWING THE BUSH DOCTRINE!

Do you think the guy growng poppies in Afghanistan gave a damn when the US blew up the Afghan government/military? He'd probably thank you assuming you left him alone but invasion results in changing the culture. Now he's told what he can and can't grow on his land. Now he's told he has to send his daughter to school and she can wear what she wants. We went from fighting terrorism to fighting the average citizen and that's where the problem lies and that's where droning comes in. Knock out the enemy such as the terrorists who jump the Iraq/Pakistan border but leave the general population alone. Simply stated, get the terrorists and stop trying to spread democracy.

I think the people we're dropping bombs on with our drones, probably do not like it, and it probably isn't helping their sentiments toward the United States. This is certainly NOT the policy Obama promised in 2008, and NOT what Liberals clamored for all through the Bush years.

"Knock out the enemy..." What the fuck do you mean? These people are our enemy because we won't get the hell out of their country and leave them alone! That's what you idiots told us for ten years! You just finished lecturing me on their culture and leaving them be... now you are calling them the "enemy" we need to "knock out" and it's convoluted as hell! You go from being Ghandi to MacArthur in one paragraph! ...AMAZING!
 
When the Iraqis drafted a Constitution which recognized Islamic religious laws, who screamed and complained? Not the right. No one has tried to change their culture. We helped freed Iraqi's establish a functioning democratic-style government. The first such government of its kind in the middle east. So far, it seems to be working rather well. Yes, they've had some bumps in the road, yes there is still some violence, but the Iraqi people, by and large, are very grateful for being liberated from Saddam Hussein's brutal tyrannical regime.

Sure, Dix. We selected/approved the candidates that ran, supervised the elections and we’re still there but, hey, everyone is happy.

We stand up for rights and freedom in this country, and abhor misogynism. To hear you try and justify the abuse and mutilation of women in radical Muslim countries, is almost as grotesque as hearing you talk about unborn human life. You are pathetic pond scum, not worthy of the label "human" in my opinion. Again... We have not entered ANY country in the Middle East and told them how they must live and behave. We advocate FREEDOM, and that includes WOMEN, bonehead!

It’s not our business to enter any country and advocate anything. And it’s a bit more than advocating when soldiers were escorting girls to school and telling people what they could and could not grow on their land. You have a strange definition of “advocate”. And while on the subject should we invade countries that mutilate male babies by having them circumcised? Any particular country/people come to mind? Or are you pond scum and actively support such practices and people and countries? I’ll be looking forward to your answer.

No, I haven't seen ANY interview of Cheney or McCain where they criticized Obama for withdrawing troops.

Then you’re ill informed.

BEFORE Obama was president, they questioned his RHETORIC about pulling completely out of the wars, because they knew that couldn't be done without severe consequences. Turns out, Obama didn't follow through with his RHETORIC. He followed Bush's timeline for withdrawal in Iraq, and we're still in Afghanistan, no one has been withdrawn.

The Bush Doctrine calls for aggressive American intervention to combat the threat of terrorism wherever it exists... that's what the drones are doing, by your very own admission. SO YES... OBAMA IS FOLLOWING THE BUSH DOCTRINE!

So you’re saying drones spread democracy? Interesting take on that.

I think the people we're dropping bombs on with our drones, probably do not like it, and it probably isn't helping their sentiments toward the United States. This is certainly NOT the policy Obama promised in 2008, and NOT what Liberals clamored for all through the Bush years.

"Knock out the enemy..." What the fuck do you mean? These people are our enemy because we won't get the hell out of their country and leave them alone! That's what you idiots told us for ten years! You just finished lecturing me on their culture and leaving them be... now you are calling them the "enemy" we need to "knock out" and it's convoluted as hell! You go from being Ghandi to MacArthur in one paragraph! ...AMAZING!

That old reading comprehension raising its ugly head again, huh?

Yes, Dix, we have to leave but due to gross Repub incompetence the entire security forces of the countries in question were destroyed. The military. The Police. The countries can not protect themselves from anyone or any thing. That means organized crime can move in so the people won’t be getting their country back if we leave too soon. This is just another example of Repubs not thinking things through. Well, actually they did think things through if thinking includes permanent occupation. That was the goal all along. Destroy their ability to protect themselves so they would require US protection along with, of course, US laws and culture. Is it so difficult to see the obvious?

Oh, in case you forgot just a reminder of the question I asked about people and countries that mutilate male babies. Here's a hint. One country in particular that the US not only supports financially but will go to the mat if attacked. A country that the Repubs accuse Obama of snubbing. A country the Repubs are willing to send American troops to their death to defend that country's right to mutilate male babies. I'd like to hear your rationale for that.
 
A bold statement indeed, but let's examine the facts. That is, if you aren't afraid to objectively look at the facts. One thing that seems to have changed over the last 4 years is how we determine what is a fact. It used to be, a "fact" was a cold hard truth we had to accept as such, regardless of our personal sentiments. Lately, it seems to be a malleable detail, which can be distorted and transfixed to whatever the prevailing mindset of the moment dictates. Used to be, you were entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts, now you are apparently entitled to your own facts to support your own opinions. Facts are completely customizable, one size rarely fits all. One man's fact is another man's propaganda. "Fact Checkers" have now replaced the old wordsmiths we used to call "Spin Doctors." It lends more credibility to have a 'fact checker' confirm whatever spin you are advancing, and this has almost entirely replaced the age-old custom of research and investigation of details. It allows things that were once considered rumor and innuendo, to be advanced as credible fact, because some 'fact checker' found a way to frame the argument around hearsay or gossip, and through mass media repetition, forged a "fact" from nothing more than thin air and imagination. It's an amazing time we live in, but I digress.

Let's get back to Obama and the election. Most people voted for Obama based on their principles and convictions. You based your vote on the things he said he would do as president, things which were inline with your own principles and convictions. Whether it was an administration that promised to be more transparent, or how to deal with a teetering economy, or how to create jobs and boost recovery, how to provide health care for every American, the spending and debt, or even how we deal with foreign affairs and the war on terror, you based your vote for Obama on his message of "hope and change" and believed this was the man to get America back on the right track.

Almost as soon as Obama took office, his administration began to break the promises made in his campaign. The very reasons you voted for him, were completely ignored, timidly walked back, or explained away as to how they couldn't be delivered because of obstructionist republicans. Of course, Obama did not campaign saying that he wouldn't be able to do all the glorious and wonderful things he had in mind because he wouldn't have a super-majority in Congress, did he? He wasn't up there saying, Look... I have the same principles as you, I don't like keeping terrorists at Gitmo, but there's really nothing else we can do at this point, we have to keep them there! Nope... he said he would close Gitmo within the first year in office. He also promised health care for every American, and lower health care insurance premiums, and that didn't happen either. All along the way, through Obama's first term, we see example after example of failure to deliver on his promises. The very principles and convictions behind "hope and change" which was the basis for your vote and support.

The very principles and convictions of "hope and change" spilled over into things that Obama didn't actually ever promise, but strongly implied by his rhetoric, and it would take weeks of writing to detail all of these, as his campaign was literally flying from one campaign stop to another, making bold promises targeted at that particular demographic, even when it contradicted something they had just said at a previous stop. But none of that mattered at the time, here was a man who spoke with true conviction! Who had a clear articulate message for the future, a plan and way to go, to improve our lives and make things better for America! ...And he didn't tell you he would need 8 years and a bullet-proof Congress, did he?

Obama led you to believe, he could somehow bring America together, to find universal solutions which worked for every American, and answered our challenges for the new century. He led you to believe we needed to end the wars and take a more diplomatic role toward our enemies. Our military is currently conducting strategic hostile military operations in 5 countries instead of two, and our enemies in the Middle East are stronger and more defiant than any other time in modern history. Two-thirds of the deaths in Afghanistan have occurred on Obama's watch, and there has been ZERO talk of our mission objectives, a timetable for withdrawal, what constitutes a 'victory' or anything else, it's as if the war simply doesn't exist to Obama & Co. America remains starkly divided and on an aimless path to something not good or healthy for our society. If your principles and convictions told you that Obama would somehow bring greater racial harmony and overcome the stigmas of the past, they lied to you. Obama has caused MORE divisiveness and disunity among, not just races of people, but entire classes as well. Anywhere and everywhere Obama has found to divide us and pit us against each other, he has.

If your principles and convictions made you find support for Obama on the basis of nationalized health care, his 'crowning achievement' as president, again he has failed to deliver. He promised affordable universal health care coverage for every American. What we got, was over 2,000 pages of bureaucracy that no one understands, which only gives a few million more people health care coverage, while dramatically raising premiums across the board for all. In order to do this much, he will have to raid the Medicare funds and mandate liabilities to the states, who will have to pass the expenses on to the state taxpayers. This brings us to his other 'principled conviction' of not increasing the tax on ANY American making under $200k. If it stands, Obamacare will be the largest tax increase in human history by any government on any citizen at any time. It will be a tax legally owed by every American, according to the Supreme Court.

Maybe your principles and convictions were inline with Obama's Keynesian philosophy? You liked the stimulus but didn't think it was enough, and liked the second stimulus too, and the bailouts, and the excessive government spending to 'revive' the economy? Well, did that work? Are we growing and creating jobs at a pace which indicates happy days are here again, or are we languishing and floundering, grappling with credit downgrades and a further devaluing of the dollar? We are currently in debt more than any country has ever been in debt, and it is currently growing at a pace of $1.6 trillion per year. My question would be, when are these Keynesian philosophies supposed to kick in? We've rang up more national debt in 4 years, than all other previous presidents combined, and things are just not a whole lot better. We may have hoped it would be, but hope has failed. And what about the most important principle and conviction of repealing the Bush tax cuts? Two years in, and Obama basically tells you that he can't end the Bush tax cuts as he promised to do, because it would devastate the economy even further. But let's just try to forget that is the exact same thing the republican candidate for president said as well.

Were your principles about government transparency? Were they about CIA/FBI encroachments on privacy? Were they about the rendition programs and counter-terrorism measures adopted in the wake of 9-11? Whatever you look at, you can see that Obama has simply failed to deliver on principles and convictions. He talks a good game, you lap up every syllable and cling to every catch phrase, and he looks so good doing it! But at the end of the day, what does all of it mean? Well what we are finding out, it means that you often get a proverbial egging in the face, like the case of the Pot Heads for Obama, who just KNEW that Obama was an ally! Obama has sent his US Attorneys and Attorney General out there to wage war on legally established medical marijuana dispensaries. There goes another principle and conviction up in smoke, eh?

Across the board, this president has failed to deliver on his promises. And the totally ironic thing is, he is now trying to blame his failures on republicans. Was he not aware that there would still be republicans if he won the presidency? Was he so inept and dumb that he believed republicans were going to gleefully support his policies without compromise or review? He promised a new era of bipartisanship, working together, getting the jobs done that Bush was unable to do. Did he deliver?




dixie your a lying, factless, emotion free meatsack
 
Apple, we're done here, you are obviously going to dance around in circles and ignore my posts, so I am not wasting anymore time. If you decide you want to actually have a discussion on what has been posted, well... too bad, you should have done that sooner. I'm out.
 
Apple, we're done here, you are obviously going to dance around in circles and ignore my posts, so I am not wasting anymore time. If you decide you want to actually have a discussion on what has been posted, well... too bad, you should have done that sooner. I'm out.

Of course you’re out of here. You don’t have an answer to the question I posed. The fact is you just realized that when it comes to pond scum you’re right there on top. While you rant on and on about countries/cultures that perform female mutilation you support a Presidential candidate who openly supports a country/culture that practices male mutilation, support that could very well constitute the involvement and death of American troops.

You’re one sick puppy, Dixie, but I’ll leave it to others to venture a guess as to why you support male mutilation.

We stand up for rights and freedom in this country, and abhor misogynism. To hear you try and justify the abuse and mutilation of women in radical Muslim countries, is almost as grotesque as hearing you talk about unborn human life. You are pathetic pond scum, not worthy of the label "human" in my opinion.

And while on the subject should we invade countries that mutilate male babies by having them circumcised? Any particular country/people come to mind? Or are you pond scum and actively support such practices and people and countries? I’ll be looking forward to your answer........

Oh, in case you forgot just a reminder of the question I asked about people and countries that mutilate male babies. Here's a hint. One country in particular that the US not only supports financially but will go to the mat if attacked. A country that the Repubs accuse Obama of snubbing. A country the Repubs are willing to send American troops to their death to defend that country's right to mutilate male babies. I'd like to hear your rationale for that.
 
Back
Top