[speechlesstx]

Now we're getting to the heart of it, Obama is changing the tone, adding new euphemisms for "terror" and making clear we're not at war with Islam (even though Bush said exactly the same thing) to soothe the poor, offended Jihadists after that born again Christian Bush referenced a "crusade" against terrorism.

So let's soften the tone and not give the Muslim world the impression we're at war with Islam. I'm sure that will overcome Palestinian TV, the cleric's sermons, cartoons and "death to America" marches. It's a whole lot less Bush mentioning a "crusade" against terror than Jihadists listening to each other.







Yep, we better soften our rhetoric and engage in diplomacy with these folks.

[excon]

Yep, we better soften our rhetoric and engage in diplomacy with these folks.

Hello again, Steve:

I knew you'd come around.;)

excon

[excon]

the President liberating 25 million Iraqi's from another jack booted dictator who was responsible for the butchering of over 2 million people in his time in power.

Hello again, tom:

What you really mean is... Yes, the dufus lied to get us into Iraq, but I love him sooo much, I'm going to make up another reason why we invaded Iraq. And, if I tell it enough times, maybe they'll forget about what the dufus really SAID.

Plus, you guys hung the banner too soon, and you're declaring liberation too soon. You, and the dufus never did, and do not now understand the Middle East. Iraq is only held together by the presence of our troops. It is a BROKEN country at war with itself, and we started it.

I don't think the half million people we killed "liberating" the country think we did a good thing, either.

Your rewrite of history is noted, though. The invasion of Iraq will turn out to be the worst foreign policy decision EVER by a sitting president!

excon

[galveston]

Hello again, tom:

Yes, I do! Because you conveniently left out the STAR bad actor in your stage play...

I call him the dufus in chief. He had the worlds biggest military machine. He invaded and occupied Iraq (right next to Iran) based upon made up allegations. He saw the world as good and evil, and you were either with him or against him... By torturing his detainees, he really pissed off the Muslim world. His born again status, and his use of the word "crusade", not surprisingly, gave the Muslim world the idea that we were at war with them.

With THAT guy gone, I'm optimistic.

excon

Just a minute, here! We pissed them off?

After embassy bombings, the Lebanon bombing of our Marines (I lost a friend in that one), the USS Cole bombing, the first trade center bombing, the final attack against the twin towers? Thirty years or so of attacks against us and our interests, and AFTER THAT we offended them??

Whart planet are you from?

In my uninformed, redneck, bigoted opinion (I just thought I'd beat you to it), we are several years into WW3. Islamic fundamental extremists have declared war on the WESTERN world. Our leaders don't have the spine to even admit that fact because it might OFFEND someone.

We will lose this war unless we get some leadership willing to take whatever steps are necessary to win. Denying that there is a war is just putting our head in the sand.

Furthermore, I think the Somalii pirates are raising funds for their war against us.

[Skell]

We will lose this war unless we get some leadership willing to take whatever steps are necessary to win. Denying that there is a war is just putting our head in the sand.

And what steps would they be? Nukes?

[tomder55]

..."To the shores of Tripoli "(the Marine Corp Hymn) . Reference is to the nation of the United States first war against jihadists pirates (1801-1805) and the Battle of Derne.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

So, we've been at war with jihadists for over 200 years and haven't won yet. Hmmm. I wonder if one of your favorite drug war slogans might fit here..

~If we only cracked down on the jihadists, we could win! ~

excon

[excon]

Just a minute, here! We pissed them off??

Hello gal:

You need to distinguish between the jihadists and the practitioners of Islam, as I did, and as the world does.

But, you really did hit it out of the park without knowing it. You DON'T distinguish between the jihadists and the Muslim world. Bush didn't either, and THEY KNOW IT.

THAT is the problem!

excon

[galveston]

Hello gal:

You need to distinguish between the jihadists and the practitioners of Islam, as I did, and as the world does.

But, you really did hit it out of the park without knowing it. You DON'T distinguish between the jihadists and the Muslim world. Bush didn't either, and THEY KNOW IT.

THAT is the problem!

excon

Re-read my post. I did say Islamic fundamental extremists. Are you saying that ALL Muslims fit this description? Do you really think that sane Muslims buy into this war? Why would they be offended if they are not in favor of it?

And yes, this war has been going on (off and on) since about the 12th century AD, and if the crusaders had not stopped these people then, and others had not stopped them since then, Islam would rule the world today. England had some serious problems with them at about the turn of the 20th century I think, and then there were the Muslim terrorists in the Philippines that Gen. Pershing (I think it was Pershing) quelled.

Wise up. In a war, you either win or lose. And then the loser may regain strength and you have to fight it all over again.

[tomder55]

I wonder if one of your favorite drug war slogans might fit here..

~If we only cracked down on the jihadists, we could win! ~

Or we could just surrender... like that solution I keep hearing about regarding illegal drugs.

[galveston]

And what steps would they be? Nukes??

Well, in the Philippines, the General rounded up all the terrorists he could find. Then he lined them up and let them watch while they smeared hog fat on the bullets they would be shot with. Those shot were buried with hog innards. He left a few alive and turned them loose. END OF PROBLEM.

If you don't have the guts to win a war, don't start. Just surrender early and hope the enemy won't hurt you too much.

That wasn't the first time someone used the Muslim fear of being polluted by swine's flesh against them. It is a powerful psycological weapon that should be employed again.

[tomder55]

On Wednesday the Obama adm continued it's weak-knee response to the Mullocracy of Iran and their homicidal delusional President the Mahdi-hatter.The White House said it would "from now on" be present when the "P5+1" group discusses with Iran its nuclear weapons ambitions. The P5+1 group is made up of five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.
P5+1 was created exclusively to deal with Tehran on nuclear diplomacy.
This breaks the US policy of not entering negotiations with Iran without pre-conditions.

So how did Iran respond to this gesture ?

Yesterday ,the Mahdi-Hatter announced that the Iranian program is swiftly reaching critical mass ,or at least an important milestone .He also announced progress on a new generation of centrifuges ,and is spinning 7,000 conventional uranium enrichment centrifuges. As as a general rule of thumb, a cascade of 850 to 1,000 centrifuges operating continuously would be able to produce enough uranium in a year, enough for one nuclear weapon .

He opened the country's first nuclear fuel production plant in Isfahan... a parallel program to Iran's other uranium enrichment activities .Once it is fully operational there will be sufficient plutonium for two nuclear weapons a year from the reactor's spent fuel.When you factor in the plutonium that can be reprocessed from Iran's Bushehr nuke power plant (that the Russians are just now completing) the potential number of weapons per year would make Iran a major nuclear weapons power.

He made it clear that he did not see any change in US policy towards Iran, and therefore was offered nothing in return.

Obama is showing weakness in his response to Iran . I can only hope that under the radar private talks yield better response than his public stance. The clock is ticking . Israel has the “Samson Option” available if nothing is done to stop Iran .

[excon]

Obama is showing weakness in his response to Iran

Hello tom:

Given your warped dufuslike view of diplomacy, you wouldn't know strength if you looked it in the eye. The total of your diplomacy can covered thusly: Bomb, bomb, bomb -- bomb, bomb Iran.

Those days are gone. Get over it.

excon

[speechlesstx]

British columnist Gerald Warner has a new moniker for Obama, President Pantywaist.

Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l'il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.

"Rules must be binding," declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. "Violations must be punished." (Sounds ominous.) "Words must mean something." (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you - as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)

President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America's missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.

Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

You'll have a lot more credibility if you argue about what Obama DOES - rather than what somebody says about him.

Is it surprising and/or news that the wingers of the world make up names?? Nahh.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

You'll have a lot more credibility if you argue about what Obama DOES - rather than what somebody says about him.

Is it surprising and/or news that the wingers of the world make up names??? Nahh.

excon

Ok, but I was merely introducing Warner's argument. And I thought it was funny, heckuva lot funnier than Dufus. :D

[galveston]

As I pointed out before, our side is unwilling to use a very potent, non violent weapon against the jihadists.

That is their belief that any contact with swine will send them to Hell. We should use that against them.

I have also heard that if a Muslim man sees a woman's breasts, he is polluted. Not sure whether this is true, but if so, opens up opportunity for a whole new approach to war!