Speaking at a Balkans Security conference in Sofia, US Ambassador James Warlick outlined both strong and weak sides of Bulgaria's position.
Warlick was the one to open the 8th annual International Conference on Security in Southeast Europe in Sofia with a statement.
"I have good news and bad news for Bulgaria. The good news is that Bulgaria has made very important steps to guarantee its national borders," the US Ambassador stated pointing out that Bulgaria is in the Eastern flank of the EU, which is also important for the United States....
US Ambassador should clean out his own house before he takes the lecture tour in security and points the finger at others.
Stop Pastors from burning "the Holy Qu'ran"!
USA is entering a fine line of high SECURITY RISK.
You must educate the USA Public concerning "Moslem Holy Tradition".
This must begin in Kindergarden.
"You must educate the USA Public concerning "Moslem Holy Tradition".
This must begin in Kindergarden."
Interesting idea, but what makes you think that the USA or any other country "must" teach Islam? I don't know how it works where you are, but in the US the various churches hold their own Sunday School classes (or whatever serves that purpose for people of other faiths), and it simply isn't a matter for public school instruction.
There is no "state religion" in the US.
You do not have to teach religion but learning history is very important to apply for everyday experience.
History of the Moslem Era in Bulgaria reflects a peaceful melting pot of Moslem, Jew and Orthodox.
How many American elementary and high school students know the peaceful coexistance found in Bulgaria.
I can use myself as an example, 90% of my education was undertaken in the USA and 10% in Europe. Not once, I was given an in depth course in Arab History and Religion.
After Basic Training in the US Army, I was trained to speak Arabic and off I went to the Persian Gulf. In Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq, I learned the principles of Arabic History and Culture.
OK, there are people who find history important as a learning tool. It all depends upon what you want to learn and why.
When I was in grade school, I loved studying Egypt, Greece and Rome, but when it got into more modern stuff I lost interest. I still prefer ancient history to the later events.
I notice that in some places you'll get a long lecture about who was king when, whom he married, whom his descendant married, until I fall asleep. I have no need to measure time by who was reigning where when, and I couldn't care less.
I have enough of a time trying to learn and adapt to the countries I've lived in, because there it's a matter of simple integration with the local populace, but beyond that I don't care.
Look, let's agree to disagree. You have different goals and priorities than I do, and they'll never mesh. I'm not for soft-pedalling criminals, no matter what their other circumstances may be.
I had an optometrist in LA who had a framed certificate on his wall which was written in Russian. I asked him what it said. He said, "Well, it says that I sang in the choir at the Army's language school". I asked him why he had put the certificate on his wall. He said just to impress people who are impressed by such things.
There are two trolls on this forum who keep trying to impress me with what they consider a superior education. In my view, if that education didn't contain decent behavior toward strangers, civility and other courtesies of daily living, they have not been educated properly.
Ermm, I thought half of the Turks fled to Northern Cyprus in the 1980's, the Jews decided Israel was a safer place to live after WWII and many of the Roma have gone to France. I would hardly describe that as a "peaceful melting pot", more like subtle xenophobia ;-).
To address your Obama question, it's hard to say. I do know that at no time in my memory has the entire population been as opposed to a sitting government as now. He's embarked on a program of socialism unheard of in American history, and the citizens don't like it.
He's just come out with another program to "stimulate" the economy, create jobs, etc. The big question is, since the government is already trillions of dollars in debt, where does he propose to get the money to pay for these programs.
It's typical socialist thinking: You can solve any problem by pouring more money into it. However, Maggie Thatcher's description is the best I know of: "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".
In my own personal opinion, the only reason Obama got elected is that he is black, and got a landslide vote from the black community, so it's difficult to tell whether the issue is racial or not. It may or may not be fair, but within the black community, there's a high degree of lack of education--opportunities or no--poverty and welfare recipients, who have grown up in this milieu and are fully convinced that the government owes them a living. (It's true here in Germany, too, but here it's not such a racial divide.) Therefore, they'll vote for anyone who promises them more money. This, however, may just as well be said of the labor unions, always demanding more pay and bennies for less and less work. The idea has taken root that the workers are "entitled" to a share of the profits, although that idea is a false one.
So where do we place the "blame" for the present situation? Extremely difficult to pin down, but the one sure thing is that SOMETHING needs to be done, and the present government isn't doing it, or not doing it properly.
This has produced what I think is a situation unique in American life, namely where the entire population, regardless of party affiliation, opposes the government. It has sparked the creation of an informal "Tea Party" political movement, which is drawing membership from all established parties and non-aligned voters. In short, a voter rebellion.
The current slogan is "Vote the bastards out", and it's being applied across the board. Nearly every Senator or Congressman up for re-election is running scared, and well they should be.
A corollary to this is panic among the present government, trying to get socialistic programs through before they lose control of the Congress, which appears to be imminent. We seem to be faced with a two-edged sword. Do we change the Congress before they can get these programs into law, or must we repeal the laws later?
Frankly, I don't know. Usually, I don't participate in voting, because nobody in Congress represents my viewpoint, and I won't vote for anyone who doesn't. This year, however, I've arranged for an absentee ballot, just so I can vote AGAINST someone.
Author: Bill, 11 Sep 2010 09:55:23
US Ambassador Sees Good, Bad News for Bulgaria's Security
To address your Obama question, it's hard to say. I do know that at no time in my memory has the entire population been as opposed to a sitting government as now.
Just saw Obamas approval rating from August at 50%.
Low point of Bushes rating was 28% if memory serves me correctly.
I guess you weren't watching the news while a Republican was sitting in the White House EH ?
And let's not forget who threw away the surplus and tripled the deficit in his 8 years...
I know you're an Obama supporter, but let's not be partisan. I've read many an article saying that blaming the prior administration for the evils is a standard excuse for the Obamaites.
True or not, I don't like Obama's visions of pure socialism, and from what I can tell from here, neither does the electorate. Simply put, Obie's facing an unprecedented rebellion.
Had to shut down and go look.
Doesn't look like majority approval to me.
for eight years the Bush bunch blamed Clinton for every problem facing America. "Not my fault, man". They even blamed Hilary and she was just married to the guy!
Why would you think Obama supporters can not do the same?
Just admit you were wrong;
You said something that was incorrect and James pointed it out.
You said "I do know that at no time in my memory has the entire population been as opposed to a sitting government as now"
Either your memory is faulty or you were asleep for the Bush years.
Rasmussen Reports is a pollster and they can (as you have pointed out) create any slant they want on anything by the questions they ask and who they ask.
It is like you are in a room with 8 people (your links to American politics) and all of you are watching FOX news and reporting to the rest of us.
When anything STOPS making the news there is a problem. As long as something is newsworthy, it is an anomaly and not the real world.
Don't forget 91% of the population is working and Obama probably would win another election tomorrow if he ran.
Expand your reading selections and maybe you will get a better feel for what we with boots on the ground see every day.
I love you conservatives with no pot to piss in and no window to through it out. What are you even thinking?
You're as bad as the other members of the fan club. Can't resist an opportunity to slam.
I have my reasons for thinking as I do, and I don't care what you think.
Democratic apologists for Obama are always trumpeting the same tune. I don't say that the prior administration was any better, but it certainly wasn't any worse.
Bill, It was MUCH worse.
You cannot have a conversation with me that does not include a reference to WW. Is there something wrong with your mind?
I come on here and pointed out the same thing James did and you jump on me for something that has nothing to do with you being wrong.
Not your opinion, Bill. Your statement was flat out wrong.
By the way, you refer to Obama as a socialist or communist. This stems from an exaggeration of Obama's real beliefs, which involve increased government regulation of our troubled financial markets, increased taxes of the wealthiest Americans and guarantees of quality healthcare to all Americans. While these policies do involve more government involvment, they do not meet the traditional understanding of socialism because they do not involve state ownership of most means of production.
Unless you want to redefine or re-purpose the word "socialism".
Stop spouting the conservative sound bites and come up with something original. Obama is not nor will he ever be a socialist and that is a fact.
Just because your little group has one station on their radio that tells you he is, they are wrong. Just like you!
50% more Chinese Tourists in Bulgaria
Potentially Defective Aluminum was used by All Car Manufacturers in Japan